Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Knebworth Water) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Ross Water) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Lanarkshire Traction Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg leave to present the humble petition of the Trinity House river pilots. Your petitioners, who are the working and seagoing pilots serving the greatest port in the country, humbly request this House not to ratify Article 41 of the proposed Convention directing a change in the ancient custom of helm orders at sea.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: On a point of Order. Before that petition is presented, may I ask whether it is not customary to indicate the number of signatories to the petition, especially as these petitions have only two or three signatures?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, that is not necessary.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps you will allow me to say that this petition is signed by the whole of the committee of the pilots, all of them sea-going working pilots.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

CAPTURED BRITISH SUBJECTS (RANSOM).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information, and can he state the amounts paid by British subjects as ransom for their release who have been captured by bandits in China during the three years ended to the latest convenient date?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): So far as I can ascertain, in only one case during the past three years has ransom money been paid to bandits by British subjects, the sum paid in that instance being about £6,000.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any portion of that was subscribed by the British Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, Sir.

SITUATION.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present position in Nanking and Shanghai?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make respecting the progress of affairs in China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no information beyond that contained in my reply on the 9th of December to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), except that the majority of British and American women and children left Nanking for Shanghai on 8th December and arrived safely on 9th December.

Sir K. WOOD: So far as the right hon. Gentleman can ascertain, is the presence of the British forces having a salutary effect, and is the position improving?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have no evidence on which I could base a conclusion. The only thing I can say is that on the 9th a Note from the commander said that things were very much quieter.

Mr. SMITHERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the sending of British warships is tantamount to murder? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

HUNGARY.

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he has made towards a settlement of the question of the Hungarian optants; and what the situation now is?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am in communication with the two Governments concerned, and in the meantime would prefer not to make any statement on the present situation.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it might be advisable as a preliminary measure to submit the legal issue to the world Court for their opinion?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, I am convinced that at this stage that would be a mistaken policy to adopt.

GERMANY AND AUSTRIA.

Mr. MANDER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received any communication with reference to a union of Germany and Austria from either of the parties mentioned?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have received no such communication.

Mr. MANDER: May I ask whether the Government have any objection to such a union?

Mr. BEAUMONT: May I ask whether the hon. Member will leave the two Governments to settle their own affairs?

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (VISA FEES).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the case presented by the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, in connection with the abolition of visa charges between Great Britain and the United States of
America, has yet been reported upon by the inter-Departmental Committee; if so, what was the nature of their Report; and what action the Government proposes to take in the matter?

Sir BASIL PETO: 10.
asked the. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information showing that the United States Government have with-drawn their offer with regard to Anglo-American passport visas, reported in Command Paper, No. 2746, of 1926 and, if not, whether the Government intend to accept the suggestion for the reciprocal waiving of fees for passport visas in favour of non-immigrants?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am afraid that this matter is still under consideration, but I have no reason to suppose that the offer made by the United States Government in 1925 is not still open.

Mr. HACKING: In view of the great. importance of this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to give a definite reply before the House rises for the Christmas recess?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have tried to indicate that the matter is really under active consideration, but I would prefer that the right hon. Gentleman should put down a question immediately after the House resumes.

RUSSIA (BRITISH RELATIONS).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Ambassador has presented his credentials on his appointment?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. The Soviet Ambassador has not yet arrived.

Captain EDEN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the approval by Parliament of the terms of the Anglo-Russian agreement, as embodied in the protocol, before it is ratified by the exchange of ambassadors?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to the reply which I returned on Monday, the 9th December, to similar questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) and the hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond).

Captain EDEN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that those answers do not reply to the question on the Paper. May I, therefore, again ask him what steps he is taking to obtain the approval of Parliament to the ratification as laid down in the terms of his own Protocol?

Mr. HENDERSON: There may be a difference of opinion as to when an answer is an answer to a question on the Paper. I think that with the first answer and all the supplementaries the question has been very fully covered.

Captain EDEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the very real seriousness of proceeding to the ratification of this agreement when the terms in his own Protocol are unfulfilled by him?

Mr. HENDERSON: This is, in my opinion, a dispute about one word. I intimated to the House in my reply on Monday that if a mistake had been made, and we should have used the words "House of Commons" instead of the word "Parliament," in order to give effect to the pledge of the Prime Minister, then the blame rests upon me.

Captain EDEN: The right hon. Gentleman must see that this is a very serious matter. May I ask what he is going to do to alter the position in the terms of his own Protocol?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that I cannot see that it is such a serious matter.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand from that last reply that the use of the word "Parliament" by His Majesty's present Government always means the House of Commons?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, the right hon. Member must not conclude anything of the kind. I gave a reply on Monday in which I said that we were trying to fulfil the condition made by the Prime Minister when he said the subject bad to be put before this House, and it has been put before this House, and there was a large majority in favour of the Protocol.

Captain EDEN: rose—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have had five supplementary questions already!

Captain EDEN: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature
of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

CHINA AND RUSSIA.

Commander BELLAIRS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the necessity of ascertaining under the Kellogg Pact whether either Power is waging offensive or defensive war, whether he can state if any Chinese forces or aircraft have been ascertained as raiding over Soviet Russian territory; and what is the greatest distance inside the Chinese frontier that Russian forces have advanced to and aerial bombardments carried out?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have received no official report of raids by Chinese troops or aircraft over territory of the Soviet Union. According to my information Soviet troops advanced as far as Chalainor some 50 miles within the western frontier of Manchuria, and Soviet gunboats raided Fuchin, 50 miles within the northern frontier. Pokutu, about 200 miles from the frontier, was bombed by Soviet aircraft.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Captain EDEN: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the decision to suspend work on the naval base at Singapore has involved any transfer., discharge, or disbandment of personnel in the employ of the Admiralty; if so, how many; whether the terms of the contract with the contractors engaged on part of the work include any break clause; whether the contractors have yet preferred any claim for compensation as a result of the decision to suspend; and whether the period of suspension of which notice has been given to the contractors is limited in time?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative in so far as concerns personnel directly controlled from the Admiralty; on the third part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer on 29th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 463) to my hon. and gallant Friend, the
Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). On the latter parts of the question, I would say that no notice of suspension has been given to the contractors, but we are in communication with them on the question of slowing down.

Captain EDEN: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the new floating dock erected at the naval base at Singapore in 1928 has yet been utilised; and whether it is proposed to move this floating dock to some other port during the suspension period announced in connection with the base?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The reply to the former part of the question is in the affirmative and to the latter in the negative.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the decision to suspend further work on the naval base at Singapore involves the closing down of the anti-malaria measures now being undertaken in the neighbourhood of the proposed base; and whether the cost of these anti-malarial works are charged to the Straits Settlements Government or to the several Governments of the Empire contributing to the cost of the base?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As regards the first part the reply is in the negative. As regards the second part this expenditure is being borne by Navy Votes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not this expenditure indicate the unsuitability of Singapore as a naval base?

ESTABLISHED MEN (PENSIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will cause an inquiry to be made as to the system of pensions of established men, particularly with a view to seeing whether a greater proportion of hired time can be counted towards pensions; if a percentage of all emoluments enjoyed, such as overtime, can be similarly reckoned; and whether established men enjoying pensions, insufficient to sustain them, can become eligible for unemployment benefit after their retirement, as is the case with sailors and soldiers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The
answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the negative; the answer to the third part is that provision is made in the Unemployment Insurance Act for bringing discharged sailors and soldiers within its scope, but established workmen are expressly excepted from the operation of the Act. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the replies given to his questions on these subjects on the 4th December. [OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 2346–7.]

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do I understand from that that the Admiralty are satisfied with the present scale of pensions for established men in the Civil Service?

TUGMASTERS (PAY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the maximum pay for tug-masters serving in His Majesty's tugs is £4 18s. a week with unlimited hours, whereas the maximum pay for tugmasters of the Liverpool Towing Company and the Alexandra Towing Company is £8 10s. a week with normal hours, and for tugmasters of the Southern Railway Company's vessels £6 18s. a week of 48 hours; and whether he will consider giving the same rates of pay to masters serving in His Majesty's tugs as those enjoyed by these employés of private firms?

Mr. AMMON: The maximum pay of masters of His Majesty's dockyard tugs is £4 18s. 7d. a week. Allowances are payable in addition in certain circumstances. The rate of pay is that awarded in arbitration by the Industrial Court on 4th July, 1928. The various considerations affecting the pay of this class of employés were brought out by the parties at the hearing by the Industrial Court in the arbitration proceedings, and it is not proposed to depart from the finding of the court.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that those in the employ of the State should be treated worse than those employed by private individuals?

Mr. AMMON: The conditions are not analogous, and I think that we must stick to the well-defined trade union principle of the acceptance of the findings of the Industrial Court by both parties.

EXPENDITURE (PALESTINE).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached as to the allocation of naval expenditure incurred as the result of naval movements in consequence of the recent disturbances in Palestine?

Mr. AMMON: No decision has yet been reached on this matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has there been any appreciable expenditure?

Mr. AMMON: I must have notice of that question.

DOCKYARD WORK.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the forthcoming Five-Power Naval Conference, dockyard construction and extension is being suspended elsewhere than at Singapore?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No other dockyard work of this character is in hand at present.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Will the suspension of work at Singapore be reviewed by the Five-Power Naval Conference?

Mr. ALEXANDEP: That question does not arise.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: It is actually in the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: In view of the persistent doubts in the minds of everybody, and in view of the fact that the Five-Power Naval Conference is a national and not a party question, will the First Lord ask the Prime Minister to make a statement?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

DISCIPLINE (FLOGGING).

Mr. BENSON: 24.
asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether discipline in the Navy has suffered owing to the abolition of flogging; and whether there has been any demand by the naval authorities for its re-introduction?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

TUBE WORKS, LANDORE (CONTRACTS).

Mr. MILLS (for Mr. W. THORNE): 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any contracts for steel tubes have been undertaken by a tube works at Landore for his Department; and, if so, whether such contracts include the Fair Wages Clause?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

HONG KONG (CHILD LABOUR).

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what Reports have been received on the working of the Industrial Employment of Children Ordinance of 1922 in Hong Kong; and whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The Annual Reports of the Inspector of Factories in Hong Kong have given information on the effect of this Ordinance since 1922. The results have been encouraging and further legislation to improve factory conditions for women and children in the Colony is under the Governor's consideration. I am arranging for a set of the Annual Reports to be placed in the Library of the House.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COLONIES).

Mr. DAY: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Courts of any of the British Colonies have, during the previous three years, passed sentences of corporal punishment upon prisoners who have been convicted of political offences?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I would point out that there are no offences specified as political in British Colonies. Prisoners can only be convicted of breaches of the ordinary law.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA.

PRE-MARRIAGE INITIATION RITE.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a pre-marriage initiation rite is practised on young girls among many African tribes
that this rite in its most severe form consists of actual mutilation and causes great suffering and subsequent most serious injury to health; and whether any steps are taken to repress this custom?

Dr. SHIELS: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Considerable caution is necessary in interfering with native customs of this kind, and the policy followed up till now by the Colonial Governments concerned has been to bring persuasion to bear upon the tribes which now practise the rite in its more brutal forms to return to the traditional and less harmful form of it. I am glad to say that a number of the local Native Councils in East Africa have in fact passed resolutions making illegal the severer forms of the operation. My noble friend proposes to go further into the matter with the Colonial Governments concerned.

NATIVE WELFARE.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the numbers of the African populations of Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda, respectively; and, in the last year for which figures are available, what was the amount spent by the Governments of these Colonies, respectively, on midwives, hospitals, child welfare, and any other form of health service, and in the education of women and girls, distinguishing services supplied direct by Government and services supplied by missionary bodies with the aid of a Government grant?

Dr. SHIELS: As the reply is necessarily long and includes a number of figures, I will, with the Noble Lady's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may, however, add that my Noble Friend is taking steps to ascertain what can be done to further the objects mentioned in the question and other matters of native welfare.

Following is the reply:

(i) The latest estimate of the numbers of the African population of these Dependencies is as follows:


Tanganyika
…
…
…
4,740,706


Uganda
…
…
…
3,241,543


Kenya
…
…
…
2,838,022

(ii) In the last year for which returns are available the total Government expenditure in these Dependencies on Health Services, exclusive of capital expenditure, was:




£


Tanganyika (1928–29)
…
232,467


Uganda (1928)
…
141,713


Kenya (1928)
…
199,198

(iii) The following approximate amounts were spent on

(a) Upkeep of hospitals, and (b) Construction and repair of hospitals (excluding in both cases expenditure on personnel:

(a) Upkeep of hospitals:





£


Tanganyika (1928–29)
…
…
16,015


Uganda (1928)
…
…
12,250


Kenya (1928)
…
…
12,076

(b) Construction and repair of hospitals:





£


Tanganyika (1928–29)
…
…
14,974


Uganda (1928)
…
…
2,254


Kenya (1928)
…
…
16,269

(iv) The other detailed information asked for as regards expenditure on Health Services is not available.

(v) As regards education, no figure showing separately expenditure on female education in these Dependencies are available.

(vi) The grants made by the three Governments to mission bodies in respect of Health and Educational Services totalled:




£


(a) Tanganyika (1928–29)
…
15,906


(b) Uganda (1928)
…
30,641


(c) Kenya (1928)
…
33,500

No information is available showing in detail the services on which these grants were expended.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. BROCKWAY: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state when a declaration of the Government's policy on East Africa is to be made?

Dr. SHIELS: There is nothing which I can add at present to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on the 21st November, except to say that it will not be possible to make any statement on this subject before Christmas.

EDUCATION.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount expended, in the last year for which complete figures are available, on boys' and girls' education, respectively, in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika, respectively, distinguishing expenditure on Government institutions and institutions administered by voluntary agencies with the aid of Government grant?

Dr. SHIELS: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the Noble Lady's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In the last year for which returns are available the total expenditure of the Governments of these Dependencies on education was as follows:




£


(a) Uganda (1928)
…
49,556


(b) Kenya (1928)
…
162,386


(c) Tanganyika (1928–29)
…
75,947

Included in these totals were grants to missions totalling:





£


(a)Uganda
…
…
28,066


(b)Kenya
…
…
31,630


(c)Tanganyika
…
…
15,906

It is not possible to give figures showing separately expenditure either by Governments or by missions on female education.

RAILWAY WORK, UGANDA (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. MacLAREN: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give a return showing the number of prosecutions and convictions of persons refusing to work on the railway in the Entebbe district of Uganda for the four quarters ending March, 1929?

Dr. SHIELS: It is understood from the Governor of Uganda that there have been a few cases in which natives have been convicted in the native Courts of Buganda for refusing to work on the new railway from Jinja to Kampala. The Governor recognises that this is inconsistent with the Protectorate legislation and he has issued instructions to ensure that illegal sentences in the native Courts are, so far as possible, prevented. Detailed information as to the number of natives convicted for refusing to work on
the railway is not available, but when this has been obtained from Uganda I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS (DISTURBANCES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made to compensate Jews in Palestine for loss of life and property in the recent riots?

Dr. SHIELS: Claims for compensation are being considered; and in approved cases advances on account of compensation can be made. I will place in the Library of the House a copy of a notice issued by the Palestine Government on the subject.

Captain BENNETT: Will this compensation have to be paid by the British taxpayers?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the Under-Secretary state against whom the claims for compensation will be made?

Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Will similar compensation be given in respect of the four Christians and the 83 Arabs who also lost their lives?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Dr. SHIELS: I would like to point out that the terms of the notice are framed so that claims can be made irrespective of the race or religion of the claimants.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it will not be the people who committed the outrages who will have to pay the compensation?

Dr. SHIELS: I would like to have notice of that question.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the British taxpayer going to pay the compensation or not?

Dr. SHIELS: I must ask for notice of that question.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that a general notice has been sent out inviting people to make claims for compensation, and yet the hon. Gentleman is unable to say who is going to pay the compensation.

Dr. SHIELS: I am unable to answer that question without notice. These are matters which I cannot deal with offhand.

GOVERNMENT (ARABS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir Henry MacMahon on 24th October, 1915, wrote to King Hussein, stating that he was empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories bounded on the north by Mersina and Adana and on the west by the Red Sea and the Mediterranean up to Mersina; that these boundaries included Palestine; that on that assurance the Arabs took up arms on our behalf against the Turks; and that after the War Lord Curzon in a letter to King Feisal on 9th October, 1919, repeated these pledges; and whether, seeing that these pledges have not up to date been carried out, he will at least see that the Arabs, who form four-fifths of the population of Palestine, are given a fuller share in the Government of Palestine?

Dr. SHIELS: With regard to the question of the pledges, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 9th December to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). The last part of the question raises a matter of general policy which cannot be dealt with by question and answer.

Mr. BOOTHBY: In view of the prevailing uncertainty, will the Government take an early opportunity of laying down their policy with regard to Palestine.

Dr. SHIELS: The policy of the Government in regard to Palestine has been frequently stated, and I see no necessity for any new statement.

Mr. COCKS: Will the Under-Secretary publish the correspondence between Sir Henry MacMahon and King Hussein as a White Paper?

Dr. SHIELS: I will consider that point.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the Government publish the correspondence in which it was made clear that Palestine was excluded from the mandate?

Cotonel HOWARD-BURY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask my hon. Friend—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have called the next question.

CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action, if any, has been taken by the Ceylon Legislature with regard to the present proposals for the change of the Constitution, and when a final decision is expected?

Dr. SHIELS: The Debate on the proposals is proceeding. I cannot say when a final decision may be expected.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (DOMESTIC WORKERS).

Mr. DAY: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of single women who were assisted to proceed overseas for household work during the 12 months ended to last convenient date; and can he give a general outline of the rate of pay received by such persons in the Dominions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): During the year ending 30th September, 1929, 6,874 single women were assisted to proceed to the Dominions as household workers. Of these, 4,748 went to Canada, 1,930 to Australia, 184 to New Zealand, and 12 to Southern Rhodesia. The monthly rates of pay of household workers in the Dominions vary. I understand that the following may be regarded as the normal rates, in addition to board and lodging:


Canada

$15 to $45


Australia
…
£4 to £8


New Zealand
…
£4 to £7


Southern Rhodesia
…
£3 to £7

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any fund which would permit of assisted passages for these female workers to return to this country if they found employment more congenial to them?

Mr. LUNN: There is nothing, so far as I know, up to the present.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these ladies get married out there?

Mr. LUNN: I hope all of them.

FILM ("IRELAND'S ROUGH-HEWN DESTINY").

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Empire Marketing Board is responsible for the showing in this country of the film, "Ireland's Rough-hewn Destiny"; and by whom the film was produced and upon what terms it is being shown?

Mr. LUNN: The film to which the hon. Member refers was produced by Lieut.-Colonel V. A. Haddick. The Empire Marketing Board had no hand in its production. It illustrates one of a number of lectures which have been approved by the Board for inclusion in their programme for the current session.

Major ROSS: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this film contains no reference whatever to the most important industrial area in Ireland, that is to say, Northern Ireland?

Mr. LUNN: It may be that there is going to be another film which might bring in Northern Ireland.

Major ROSS: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether the title of the film could not be altered to a more appropriate one? Surely, the destinies of the Irish Free State are sufficiently rough-hewn?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION HIGH COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. MANDER: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is proposed to make any change in the status of the High Commissioners of the Dominions?

Mr. LUNN: If, as I assume, the hon. Member's question relates to the functions to be performed by the High Commissioners, on behalf of their respective Governments, in relation to the Government here, this is a matter for each of the Dominion Governments concerned; His Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom are most willing to accord to the High Commissioners in this respect whatever position their Governments may desire that they should occupy.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the views expressed on this subject by the late High Commissioner for 'South Africa, and will he give them consideration?

Mr. LUNN: If there is any point that my hon. Friend has with regard to that matter, I will, if he will come to see me, give him all the information that I have.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE (ECONOMIC UNITY).

Captain MACDONALD: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received any requests from the Dominion Governments that the question of Imperial Economic Unity shall be a subject for discussion at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?

Mr. LUNN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PROGRAMME.

Captain BULLOCK: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if this year's programme of seven new squadrons for the Air Force is being carried out; and, if so, whether these seven squadrons are being properly equipped?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The provision of two new flights for the Fleet Air Arm, which form' part of the programme referred to in the question, is being reexamined, but otherwise no change has been made in the programme, either as regards the formation of new units or the scale of their equipment.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Major GLYN: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what sum of money has been expended to date on the air base at Singapore; what is the estimated further expenditure required to complete the base; whether the object of this new base is the defence of the naval base or has an independent objective; what is the proposed strength of the Air Force to be maintained perma-
nently at Singapore; and whether any change has been made as a result of the decision of the Admiralty to suspend further work on the naval base?

Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first two parts of the question, the amount expended to date on the air base at Singapore is approximately £270,000, and the sum required for its completion, £300,000. As regards the third part, the facilities which are being provided will serve, not only for local defence, but also for the maintenance of British air communications in the Far East, and for the shore training and repair of equipment of air units allocated to naval forces in those waters. As regards the fourth part, the strength of the Air Forces which will be normally maintained at Singapore as at present contemplated, is one squadron of land machines and one squadron of flying boats. These numbers are exclusive of any Fleet Air Arm units which may from time to time be disembarked there. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Major GLYN: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that any alterations in the policy of His Majesty's Government do not affect previous arrangements made by the Air Ministry?

Mr. MONTAGUE: My answer is complete in that respect. So far as there may be alterations, they will be purely of a detailed character.

Commander WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman's first answer apply to the Navy as well as to the Air?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot speak for the Navy.

FLYING BOAT CRUISE, SOUTH AMERICA.

Captain MACDONALD (for Captain HAROLD BALFOUR): 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any further information regarding a Royal Air Force flying boat cruise in South American waters?

Mr. MONTAGUE: No, Sir, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. and gallant Member on 10th July.

SEA-GOING AIRCRAFT (PARACHUTES).

Captain MACDONALD (for Captain BALFOUR): 44.
asked the Under-Secre-
tary of State for Air if parachutes are yet adapted for use on and compulsory equpiment for pilots and crews of seagoing aircraft and flying boats?

Mr. MONTAGUE: No, Sir, not as yet. A good deal of difficulty has been experienced in devising a form of quick release gear which will enable the wearer to free himself from the parachute harness if he falls in the water and which complies with the other special requirements for sea-going aircraft. A new form of such gear is under trial at present and I am hopeful that it will prove satisfactory.

SERVICE OVERSEAS (INDULGENCE PASSAGES).

Captain MACDONALD (for Captain BALFOUR): 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if Royal Air Force Officers posted for overseas service in His Majesty's aircraft carriers stationed abroad are allowed indulgence passages for wives and families under the same conditions as naval officers serving in these vessels and Royal Air Force officers serving at land stations overseas where married establishments are recognised?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer is in the affirmative, so far as it relates to Air Force officers; naval practice is, of course, a matter for the Admiralty. Indulgence passages for Air Force officers' wives and families are allowed under the same conditions whether the officers are serving His Majesty's aircraft carriers stationed abroad or at land stations overseas.

RATING.

Mr. SANDHAM: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to appoint a Royal Commission of inquiry into the question of rating, having in mind the position of local and national taxation?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The reply is in the negative.

SCOTLAND (HOME RULE).

Mr. SCOTT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to set up forthwith a committee of inquiry on the question of self-government for Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to what I said on this subject during the Debate on the Address in July last. My observations will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the 10th July, 1929, Vol. 229, columns 930–934.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to overlook the fact that there is also the question of self-government for Wales?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON TRAFFIC (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport when he will be in a position to lay before Parliament his proposals for the reorganisation of London transport?

Sir K. WOOD: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give in greater detail his plans concerning London traffic, and particularly what is the nature of the public ownership that is contemplated, and how he proposes to provide at the same time for the principle of commercial management; and whether he has any statistics which indicate that such a scheme will provide a self-supporting consolidated transport enterprise for London?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): If the hon. Members will refer to the statement which I made on the 2nd December, they will see that I do not expect to be in a position to make any further statement on the subject for some time.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, which is not affected by that reply, namely:
Whether he has any statistics which indicate that such a scheme will provide a self-supporting consolidated transport enterprise for London?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, I am not prepared to answer that question. We are on the verge of very important and delicate negotiations, and every responsible Member of this House will agree that the Minister should conduct those negotiations with a full sense of responsibility, and not discuss details in this House.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman, surely, is able to say whether he has
any statistics? I am not asking him to produce them. I am asking him whether, before he made that statement, he had any statistics in relation to it? Further, I would like to ask him, inasmuch as he declines to make a statement here, how it was that he went on a public platform last week at a Socialist meeting and gave further explanations?

Mr. MORRISON: As far as the public platform is concerned, I was very careful not to add anything to the statement which I made in this House. As far as the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is concerned, the Government have sufficient information to warrant them in approving of the principle which I have already announced to the House.

Mr. MILLS: Will my hon. Friend, before he makes his next report to the House of Commons, be able to bring before it the relationship that the River Thames will bear to the problem of transport in London?

Mr. HARRIS: Before the hon. Gentleman opens up discussions with the Traffic Combine, will he discuss the matter with the London County Council, as representing the people of London?

Mr. MORRISON: We are keeping all proper contacts with the bodies concerned, but there is nothing to be gained by the premature opening up of detailed negotiations.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the idea is that the Combine should be conducted by a board of directors free from Government control?

Mr. MORRISON: That is obviously covered in principle by the statement which I made in the House on the 2nd December.

Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the public and business people are unaware of what the intention of the Government really is, and will he reply to the point that I have put to him?

GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.

Mr. TRAIN: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the original estimate for the Glasgow-Edinburgh road at present under construction; and what has been the total expenditure to date?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The original estimate for the Glasgow-Edinburgh road was £2,115,000, and the total expenditure to date is £1,377,000. Further expenditure of a substantial amount will shortly be incurred as a result of works now in progress or about to be undertaken.

Mr. TRAIN: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport how many unemployed men have been engaged from the Labour Exchanges in Glasgow and Lanarkshire for the construction of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road since the work was begun; and what was the approximate average duration of their employment?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Information in the precise form asked for by the hon. Member is not available. I may say, however, that since October, 1924, up to the end of September, 1929, the average number of workmen employed per day on the construction of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road has been 837.

Mr. TRAIN: Is the Minister aware that there are miles of this road standing in a semi-finished condition, with no men working there; that there is a number of bridges to be built which would employ a lot of unemployed men this winter; that the people of Glasgow and Lanarkshire are very dissatisfied about it, seeing that they are subscribing £350,000 of the money; and will he take steps to see that the road is gone on with, so as to take up these unemployed people?

Mr. MORRISON: I think the hon. Member's supplementary question is not quite right in relation to the last question that I answered. He may be perfectly certain that the Government are doing everything that is possible to push forward the execution of the work.

FORTH ROAD-BRIDGE.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the memorandum prepared by the town clerk of Edinburgh on the proposed Forth road-bridge has yet been brought to his notice; and whether he is prepared to arrange for a conference with the local authorities on the matter?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have the matter under consideration.

LIVERPOOL-MANCHESTER ROAD.

Mr. TINKER: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport the total amount of the Government grant towards the cost of making the Liverpool-Manchester road now in the course of construction: and will he state what percentage it is of the total cost?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Government grant towards the cost of the Liverpool-East Lancashire road is limited to £2,250,000, or 75 per cent. of the approved cost of the scheme, whichever is less.

Mr. TINKER: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many people are employed on this road, and when it, will be finished?

Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid that that question must be put on the Paper.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the owners of the land alongside the road be asked to contribute to the cost?

Mr. MORRISON: I should require notice of that question, but in any case—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that question arises here.

NORTH AND SOUTH SHIELDS (CROSS-RIVER COMMUNICATIONS).

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the cross-river communications between North and South Shields?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I regret I am not yet in a position to give a decision on the application made by the Boroughs of Tynemouth and South Shields with regard to the appointment of an engineer to report upon cross-river communication between North and South Shields, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly.

Mr. EDE: Will my hon. Friend be able to give a decision this side of Christmas?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot be certain, but I hope to be able to do so.

CLYDE AND MERSEY (PASSENGER BOAT SERVICES).

Mr. HARRIS: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information as to the organisation of passenger boat service on the rivers. Clyde and
Mersey both as to the number of passengers carried and fares charged; and, if so, whether he will supply the particulars?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not in possession of the information which the hon. Member desires.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to collect the information through the ordinary channels?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not certain, but, if the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will see whether we can get any useful information for him.

THAMES TRAFFIC.

Mr. HARRIS: 64.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has any report as to the use of the River Thames, within the Metropolitan area, for transport purposes, or any statistics showing the number of barges and steamers carrying goods regularly using the river in the tidal area; if not, whether he will have an inquiry made as to how far it is used; and whether by improved organisation more use could he made of the river?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have brought the hon. Member's question to the notice of the Port of London Authority, who informed me that the number of sea-going ships which used the tidal portion of the River Thames during the year 1928 was 55,694, with a total net registered tonnage of 55,423,681. In addition there are 9,363 barges registered by the Port Authority. The Authority estimate that in the course of a year about 2,000 tugs, launches, barges and other small craft, exclusive of rowing boats, navigate the river above London Bridge.

Mr. PALMER: Would the present traffic on the Thames preclude the extension of traffic to passenger boats going up and down the river?

Mr. MORRISON: I have not noticed that the Thames is so congested that it could not stand any passenger boats.

PARKING PLACES, LONDON (MALL).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 69.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the shortage of parking places in the
West End of London, he will consider allowing cars to park in the Mall?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I have given this matter full consideration, and I cannot see my way to allow the Mall to be used as a parking place for cars.

RIVER SEVERN (NAVIGATION).

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE (for Mr. HANNON): 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has recently received from the Severn Commission and other bodies representations for the improvement of the navigation on the River Severn; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have recently been in communication with the Severn Commissioners, and explained to them the conditions under which Government financial assistance might be given for the purpose of improving the navigation, and have pointed out to them that if the undertaking is to be maintained it would appear to be necessary that the various local interests concerned should themselves take steps to improve the present financial position of the undertaking. I understand that the Commissioners are considering the desirability of conferring with the interested parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

WAYLEAVES AGREEMENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a definite interpretation as to Clause 13 of the draft form of wayleaves agreement issued by the Electricity Commission and, in particular, as to whether this Clause is an over-riding Clause whereby rights saved to undertakers extend to the case of land required by the grantor for any of the purposes set out in Clause 9?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I would remind the hon. Member that the document to which he refers is merely a provisional draft which has been circulated, for the consideration of the parties interested, by the Electricity Commissioners, who would be prepared to consider any observations they may receive. I may add, however, with regard to the particular point referred to, that I under-
stand that the intention of the Commissioners was that the rights saved by Clause 13 of the document should not extend to land required by the grantor for any of the purposes set out in Clause 9.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES - BRISE.: Will the Minister of Transport take steps to see that the Electricity Commissioners amend the draft form of wayleaves agreement so as to make it clear that Clause 13 shall not over-ride Clause 9 before issuing the wayleaves agreement in final form?

Mr. MORRISON: I have no doubt that they will have that factor in mind, and that it will be considered. As a matter of fact, they are in consultation with well-informed people and no doubt that point will be gone into.

JOINT AUTHORITIES AND ADVISORY BOARDS.

Mr. EDE: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the areas which are covered by joint electricity authorities and joint advisory boards, respectively, in Great Britain what proportion these are to the total area of Great Britain; and will he give similar statistics based on population?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The four areas which are covered by joint electricity authorities are London and Home Counties, North Wales and South Cheshire, West Midlands and North-West Midlands. The areas cover 7,560 square miles, or 8.5 per cent. of the area of Great Britain, and include a population of 10,307,000, or 24.3 per cent. of the total population of Great Britain. The four areas which are covered by joint advisory boards or committees are South-West Midlands, South-East Lancashire, East Midlands and Mid-Lancashire. The areas cover 4,636 square miles, or 5.3 per cent. of the area of Great Britain, and include a population of 6,818,000, or 16 per cent. of the total population of Great Britain.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (ANNUNCIATOR).

Mr. COCKS: 70.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what will be the estimated cost of placing an annunciator in the Tea Room?

Mr. LANSBURY: The estimated cost is approximately £90, in addition to which a sum of £20 per annum would have to be expended on maintenance.

Mr. FOOT: Would the installation of an annunciator in the Tea Room increase or diminish the attendance in the Chamber itself?

Mr. LANSBURY: Ask me another.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EXPENDITURE (SINGAPORE).

Major GLYN: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any expenditure falling upon Army funds in connection with the military defences of the island of Singapore has been suspended as a, result of the decision of the Admiralty not to proceed further with the naval base?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The decision of the Government, as announced to the Rouse by the First Lord of the Admiralty on 13th November, was that the Government has decided that the work already contracted for at Singapore should be slowed down as much as possible, that all work that could be suspended should be suspended, and that no new work should be embarked on pending the results of the work of the Five-Power Conference. This policy is being followed by the War Office, no new orders are being given, and where work can be retarded or suspended, that is being done.

Commander SOUTHBY: Is the House to understand that Singapore is directly connected with the Five-Power Conference?

Mr. SHAW: The House is to understand what has been quite plainly stated over and over again.

Commander SOUTHBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean, in fact, that the Singapore Base is directly connected with the Five-Power Conference?

Mr. SHAW: The reply means exactly what it says. It is a plain answer to the question on the paper.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand whether it does or does not?

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYéS (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. BROCKWAY (for Mr. W. J. BROWN): 72.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of his Department, in giving effect to the Government's decision to grant six days' holiday with pay to its industrial employés, to reduce the eight days' holiday with pay prescribed in the rules for civilian employés to five days' holiday with pay; whether he is aware that this has been done in the War Department's industrial establishment; and, if so, what reason there is for this step?

Mr. SHAW: The decision of the Government was that six days' paid annual leave in addition to five paid public holidays should be granted to industrial employés. In view of this decision it was necessary to reduce the number of paid public holidays enjoyed by the War Department industrial employés in question from eight to five, but these employés, generally speaking, will get the six days' annual leave in addition to the five days, making 11 days in all as compared with eight previously. The reduction from eight to five paid public holidays is not being effected in respect of the current leave year.

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. GRANVILLE: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he intends appointing a committee of inquiry into the whole question of the payment of tithe?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The question of tithe rentcharge was exhaustively discussed during the passage through Parliament of the Tithe Act, 1925, which was largely based on a compromise between the various interests concerned, and I am not aware that any serious difficulty in the working of the Act has been revealed. The Government is not prepared, therefore, to set up a committee of inquiry into the matter.

Mr. GRANVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the working of the 1925 Act is causing acute distress among small arable farmers in East Anglia, and will he take steps to consider the lightening of their burden?

Mr. BUXTON: Complaints of the working of the Act have not reached me.

Viscount LYMINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some fields of exactly the same arable value are paying 12s. 6d. an acre in tithe and some 1s. an acre?

TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS ACT.

Mr. BRACKEN: 74.
asked the Attorney-General when he intends to introduce legislation to amend the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act?

Mr. HAYES (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The Bill is in an advanced stage of preparation and will be introduced at the first available opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

TRADE UNIONS, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (RECOGNITION).

Mr. COCKS: 77.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he gave his sanction for an official of his Department to inform, the Notts and District Industrial and Non-Political Union that only this union could be recognised in Nottinghamshire?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): No such statement has been made by any official of my Department. The attitude of my Department towards questions of this kind has always been, and still is, one of complete impartiality. It is not for my Department to decide such questions. They accept the facts as they find them. On any occasion on which they have had to communicate with workmen's representatives on a matter affecting the Nottingham district generally, they have communicated with both the Industrial Union and with the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association.

Mr. COCKS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of the Union mentioned in the question publicly stated that he had had recognition given to him by the Department?

Mr. TURNER: I have seen the paragraph alluded to, but I am not responsible for it.

Mr. COCKS: I may take it that the statement is entirely untrue?

Mr. TURNER: I have just said so.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Mines Department is recognising a non-political union?

Mr. TURNER: The hon. Member must understand that the answer I have given is the proper answer.

AUTOMATIC GAS DETECTORS.

Mr. PALMER (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 75 and 76.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he has any knowledge of the number of colliery managers or agents who have approved of and who use automatic gas detectors at the collieries for which they are responsible;
(2) how many automatic gas detectors have been approved by his Department, and how many collieries make use of them?

Mr. TURNER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) on 9th December.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINA.

Mr. ALLEN: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during the negotiations of the Anglo-Argentine commercial understanding, the desirability was considered of securing for linen and other depressed industries the same preferential treatment as that accorded to the artificial silk industry?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir, no commercial negotiations in the ordinary sense have taken place, but Lord D'Abernon's Mission drew attention to the duties on artificial silk goods, because they were abnormally high and because it had been represented to them that this was an outstanding case of a trade which was capable of considerable expansion if the duties in force could be materially reduced. No such representations have reached the Board of Trade in recent years in regard to linen goods.

TARIFFS (EXPORT BOUNTIES).

Mr. GODFREY LOCKERLAMPSON (for Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government will make the abolition of
bounties on export a condition of their assent to any proposals for the fixation of tariffs emanating from the League Economic Conference?

Mr. GILLETT: His Majesty's Government, during the forthcoming discussions, will bear in mind all relevant considerations, but at this stage they could not give a pledge on specific points.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will the hon. Member take notice of the effect of this bounty-fed corn in this country, and will he deal with it somewhat on the lines suggested in the question?

Mr. GILLETT: All these points will be borne in mind, but my right hon. Friend cannot make any promise at the present time.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Have not the Board of Trade already promised to take this question up at the Economic Conference of the League? Will he remember that?

Mr. GILLETT: I misunderstood the hon. Member. That promise has been carried out. The matter has been mentioned already.

MERCHANT SHIPS (LOAD LINES).

Mr. SANDHAM: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet considered the Report of the Committee on the road line of ships; whether it contains any recommendations for the raising of the load line; and, if so, whether, in view of the serious loss of life at sea, he will obtain the views of some seamen and firemen before reaching a final decision on the Report?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The Report of the Committee on the load lines of merchant ships is under consideration, and it is proposed to consider the whole question at an international conference in the near future. As regards the second part of the question, I would explain that while some recommendations would result in raising of the load lines on certain ships, new conditions as to loading and equipment are suggested with a view to securing increased safety at sea. Any proposal to alter the existing Regulations will, in accordance with the usual pro-
cedure, be submitted to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, on which seamen and firemen are represented.

Mr. SANDHAM: Is it the fact that the Trade Union Congress General Council have very decided views on this matter as well, and will they be consulted?

Mr. SMITH: No information of that sort has reached me yet.

AIR SERVICES (DELHI-CALCUTTA).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed in the near future to extend the Indian air-mail route to Delhi and Calcutta; and whether anything can be done to prevent unnecessary delay in delivery of letters of the Indian mail due to inefficient terminal communications?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The Government of India hope that the extension of the Indian Air Mail Service to Delhi will be inaugurated this year. As regards the further extension to Calcutta, I fear I have nothing to add to the latter part of the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southern Derbyshire on the 9th December. The Government of India are making every effort to ensure that the timetable adopted for the extended service will secure the regular and prompt transit of foreign mails to and from their destinations in India.

AGED WORKERS (PENSIONS).

Mr. SANDHAM: 84.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government proposes to introduce a Bill for the retirement on pension of all aged workers in industry; and, if so, can he give an approximate date when the Bill will be laid before the House?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 3rd December to the hon. Members for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) and North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

Major TRYON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if all aged workers
have to retire at the age of 60 he will lose half his colleagues in the Cabinet?

Mr. THOMAS: The terrible consequences of such a possibility warn me in advance.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the proposal to be optional?

NICARAGUA (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. ALLEN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that representations have been made to the Nicaraguan Government in respect of losses of British subjects during the recent disturbances in that country, he is in a position to report that these claims have been satisfied?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: A Mixed Claims Commission was set up in 1927 by the Nicaraguan Government to deal with all claims of foreigners arising out of revolutionary disturbances in Nicaragua, and as I informed the hon. Member on the 15th July, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Managua presented 117 British claims of this character to the Nicaraguan Foreign Office. The Mixed Claims Commission originally set up was suspended by the Nicaraguan Government before any progress had been made, but His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Managua has now reported that the Mixed Commission has been reconstituted by presidential decree and that the reconstituted Commission is expected to begin its work in the near future.

AFGHANISTAN (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION).

Mr. ALLEN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any diplomatic or consular representative at Kabul; and when it, is proposed to restore full diplomatic representation?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have not yet sent any diplomatic representative or consular officer to Kabul. It is proposed to restore full diplomatic representation as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, but this, as I explained to the hon. and gallant Mem-
ber for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) on the 20th November, may not be possible for some time.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman decided whom he will send to Kabul?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, not yet.

ST. VINCENT ERUPTION RELIEF FUND.

Mr. MILLS (for Dr. MORGAN): 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present unexpended balance of the European Relief Fund for the Soufrière volcano eruption in 1902–03 in the Island of St. Vincent, British West Indies; how is it invested; what rate of interest is being received; and to what purpose is the interest on this fund devoted?

Dr. SHIELS: The unexpended balance of £25,000 of the St. Vincent Eruption Relief Fund, made up from donations from the public in England and elsewhere at the time of the eruptions, is invested by the Crown Agents in Transvaal 3 per cent. Guaranteed Stock. The annual interest derived from this balance, amounting to £750, is credited to general revenue and applied to the relief of the poor.

COTTON CROP, ST. VINCENT.

Mr. MILLS (for Dr. MORGAN): 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have been taken to deal, in the island of St. Vincent, British West Indies, with the attack of cotton worm and soft rot in the sea island cotton crop of the island in 1928; whether the attack is now under control; whether the acreage under cotton is being increased; and whether there is any likelihood of the poor crop in 1928 being increased this year to the average of previous years?

Dr. SHIELS: The latest information available on the various points raised in my hon. Friend's question is contained in an article, to which I would refer him, in "Tropical Agriculture," the journal of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture. This article appears in the issue of October, 1929, and is written
by the Commissioner of Agriculture for the West Indies. I shall be happy to forward a copy to him if he has not already seen the article.

Mr. THURTLE: Can my hon. Friend say whether this same disease of soft rot is affecting the Conservative party?

Mr. ALLEN: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman's question studiously insulting?

ECONOMIC GENERAL STAFF.

Mr. BRACKEN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the names of the members of the proposed Economic General Staff?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am at present closely engaged in conferences on the question, and for the moment I am not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. BRACKEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under his own signature a year ago he promised to set up this Committee; and is he also aware that his party is badly in need of an economic policy?

The PRIME MINISTER: The economic troubles do not arise by our making.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

TAX OFFICE, KETTERING.

Mr. PALMER (for Mr. PERRY): 68.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the accommodation provided for His Majesty's Inspector of Taxes and staff at Dalkeith Place, Kettering, is inadequate and unsatisfactory, particularly as regards the entrance, heating, lighting, ventilation and lavatory accommodation; and whether it is proposed to secure alternative accommodation?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am satisfied that the accommodation in question is adequate and satisfactory except as regards lavatory accommodation, and steps are being taken to remedy this defect. I may add that the total staff of this office is three less than it was when the premises were originally occupied in 1924. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Mr. FREEMAN (for Miss WILKINSON): 78.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, for fitting a plug-and-socket arrangement for a telephone instrument to be used in a separate room, the sum of 14s. per year is charged; and whether, as this is the equivalent of the interest on £14 at 5 per cent., he will substitute a small inclusive payment?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Viant): The rental is based on the average costs of maintenance and depreciation together with interest on capital outlay. Maintenance is comparatively costly because any fault needs a special visit. Owing to the necessity for maintenance the substitution of an inclusive initial payment would not be practicable, but the question whether any reduction can be made in the annual charge is under consideration.

NIGHT CLUBS (EX-POLICE DOOR- KEEPERS).

Mr. MUFF: 85.
asked the Secretary of State far the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that an ex-police inspector and ex-police constables have been engaged as doorkeepers at illegal night clubs; whether these ex-officers were in receipt of a police pension; and, if so, is it his intention to cancel their pensions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): My right hon. Friend is aware that pensioned police officers, including a pensioned ex-inspector, have been so employed in one or two instances and the question of withdrawing the pension has been considered; but having regard to the fact that when the matter came to notice the employment had ceased, it was decided to take no action beyond the caution administered by the Commissioner.

Mr. MILLS: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that, while one man is fighting his Department on the question of a fine, a pension has been given to a person who acted as a spy in the same Service?

REPARATIONS.

Mr. BOYCE (for Mr. HANNON): 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is in a position to make a statement to the House on the Report of the Committee on non-German Reparations, and in particular on the extent to which this country has agreed to forego claims to Eastern European reparations in favour of the Little Entente?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I am not in a position to make any statement to the House on this subject at present for the reasons explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the East Division of Leicester (Mr. Wise) on the 26th November.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE).

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Local Legislation Committee: Major-General Sir Alfred Knox; and had appointed in substitution: Major Muir-head.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Compton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Secretary Clynes.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS PRESENTED.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL,

"to equalise the position under the Government of India Act of barristers, advocates, and pleaders, as respects qualification for appointment as Judges of High Courts, and as respects the proportion of such Judges required to possess special qualifications, and to render any pleader qualified under the said Act to be appointed a Judge of a High Court
eligible for appoinment as Chief Justice of such a Court," presented by Major Graham Pole; supported by Sir John Withers, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. LovatFraser, Mr. Milner, Mr. Thomas Ramsay, Mr. Holford Knight, and Mr. Andrew Maclaren; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 28th January, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

COAL MINES BILL,

"to provide for regulating and facilitating the production, supply, and sale of coal by owners of coal mines; for the temporary Amendment of Section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908; for the constitution and functions of a Coal Mines National Industrial Board; and for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid," presented by Mr. William Graham; supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Ben Turner; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Mr. HOPKIN: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the progress which has been made by the electricity supply industry and assures the Government of all support in any efforts it may make to secure the utmost possible efficiency in the generation and distribution of electricity and to make available a cheap and abundant supply of energy for all industrial and domestic purposes, particular regard being paid to the needs of the rural areas and to the close relationship which should exist between the coal-mining and electricity-supply industries; and this House is of opinion that electricity supply constitutes a public utility service so vital to the needs of industry in general and to the national welfare that it should be organised on such a basis that national economic interests will be paramount.
In the short time at our disposal we can do little more than take a peep at the wide field and the wide possibilities of electrical development in this country. The electrical industries are assuming a new and a greater importance. They are practically new industries. In the last 10 years this country has made enormous strides in electrical development. The capital invested in electricity supplies in 1925 amounted to £342,000,000; in 1928 it had risen to £462,000,000. In 1928 the value of the exports of electrical machinery and apparatus came to £18,600,000. It is interesting to note where these exports were sent. To Australia we sent goods of the value of £3,264,000; to India, £2,818,000; to South Africa, £1,150,000; to New Zealand, £1,022,000; and to the Argentine, £1,483,000.
The Electricity Commission in the last five years have been able to do an enormous amount of work. Five schemes which they have passed recently cover over 43 per cent. of the area of this country, containing about 75 per cent. of the population, with 450 authorised undertakings. There are 144 miles of overhead lines forming part of the grid system. In 1920 this country had 5,000,000 kilowatt capacity of generating plant, and in 1928 we had 8,860,000 kilowatt capacity. In 1920 we produced 9,000,000,000 units of electricity, and in 1928 we produced 14,960,000,000 units. While it is perfectly true that the progress in this country has been enormous in the last 10 years it is equally true that other countries of the world have made still greater progress. Our competitors in the world's markets
have been forging ahead. We ought to be in advance because we have facilities which other countries do not possess.
A very fair way of judging the progress made is to see how many units per head of the population we produce. In Great Britain it is 356 units per head; in the United States 844, in Germany 402, in Canada 1,600, and in Switzerland 1,175. The Weir Report forecast that in 1940 there would be an output of 500 units per head of population, but I am told that a reasonable estimate would be 2,500 units per head. Why is it that this country lags behind? The reason is that because other countries, particularly Germany and the United States, have done so much in industrial electrification. For instance, in Germany and the United States it is 78 per cent., Canada 90 per cent., and France 85 per cent., whilst Great Britain has only 51 per cent. One wonders what Italy would have done if they had had our enormous resources of power supply when we know what they have done with the very meagre resources at their disposal. It seems to me that the greatest line of development in this country is to be found in the rural areas. I remember as a youth singing in a rather broken tenor voice an old and well known song "Back, back to the land." I believe that is true to-day.
The one way to solve the problem of unemployment is to get larger numbers of people back to the land, where we are often in darkness and have to work hard. If we could offer more light, better amenities and easier work, we should get a larger number of people back to the rural districts. I notice with regret that in the White Paper which has just been presented there is not a single word about rural electrification. The most important part of this work is the fact that it will undoubtedly give employment to an enormous number of people. It may lie said that we must give it cheap, that it would not pay, but I suggest that some steps should be taken to average out the loss with the gains in the towns. It is estimated that the rural districts alone in this country could take 1,600,000,000 units. In the 9th Annual Report the Electricity Commissioners say:
One of the most important problems of the next few years will be to ensure that the additional facilities thus rendered available are utilised to the best advantage in providing an electrical service over as large
a proportion of the rural population as the economic circumstances of the supply will permit.
There are in this country at the present time three supply experiments. One is in Bedfordshire, another in Lincolnshire and the third in Cheshire. The plan in Bedfordshire covers three rural districts and 101 square miles, and in that area there are about 15,000 people with 4,000 houses. The cost of the scheme is estimated at £116,500 and the Treasury have agreed to make advances not exceeding 10 years and not exceeding £8,000 to meet 75 per cent. of the annual deficit. The scheme depends on taking a bulk supply from Bedford, then to run a cable out into the villages and hamlets and often to individual farmhouses, and after they have run out a cable to do as they do in America, send out a canvasser to see that the people take the supply. The point is, will the people take the supply? Of 60 farms which were canvassed in the southern part of the county 57 out of the number said that they would take the supply if and when the scheme is carried out. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what price?"] I believe it is 1¼d;. for power and 8d. for light.

Colonel ASHLEY: I believe the average is 2.4d.

Mr. HOPK1N: Take the schemes at Cheshire and Lincolnshire. Both are carried out in rural areas, and both prove abundantly that it is possible for the farmer's wife to light the house, do the cooking and cleaning, churn butter and make cheese, and, as any hon. Member can see if he cares to visit a most interesting film which has just been produced showing what is possible to be done on the farm, the farmer is able to plough, draw hay, crush cake, thresh corn and chop hay. I saw a map of the whole country in which those parts of the country covered by some undertaking were coloured green, and I noticed with regret that all West Wales was a complete blank. More than half Carmarthenshire, the whole of Pembrokeshire, more than half Cardiganshire and the whole of Brecon and Radnorshire have not been provided for at all. I would suggest that the Commissioners should have power to force companies to go into the rural areas with the supply. Why is it that the farmer of South Wales,
situated as it is at the very door of the greatest storehouse of power, have not the benefit of this plant? It may be said that it does not pay. Why should it pay in Switzerland and in Southern Sweden? Surely, if it can be made to pay there it can be made to pay in West Wales also.
4.0 p.m.
I hesitate, as a new Member of the House, to offer a criticism of the Electricity Commissioners, but I hope that the next Commissioner who is appointed will be a man who has some experience of rural areas and will not be a man who has become too old for some other undertaking. They have not spaced out their orders evenly. I understand that half their five years' contracts were placed in one year. If they were split up and divided more evenly, it would be better for consumers and better for trade as well. The Commission, if I may be allowed to say so, wants more ginger. I understand that already they are 200 orders behind, and that it takes as long as 18 months or two years in some cases to get an order through. I asked what it would cost the company at Carmarthen to extend its power to Conwil and neighbourhood, and I find that even to apply for arm order would cost more than £200. I would most respectfully suggest—it was a suggestion which was put forward in the Yellow Book—that a committee of inquiry be set up to go into the procedure of this Commission.
I wish to say a word or two about research. No amount of real progress can be carried out unless you have some research. At present it is very adequately done by a certain number of people, but this is more or less in "penny numbers." I would suggest that here is an opportunity for the Commission to take this question of research off a voluntary basis altogether and put it on to a compulsory basis directed by themselves. It seems to me that the combination of coal-mining of iron and steel production and power generation offers the best possibilities, by the use of the waste gas from the blast furnaces, low grade and powderised coal, which you cannot use now, and the surplus power from the coal mines. The hest example we have in this country is the Newcastle Electric Supply Company. They have two large generating power stations, one on the Teeside and the other on the Tync. Connected with these
are two transmission lines of 66,00u volts. Then there is a secondary system into which is pumped the energy from 12 generating stations, which get their power from the gas and heat in the coke ovens and the surplus power from the coal mines. The result is that you get greater safety, and not so much spare plant, perhaps, because the one helps the other. In Germany 40 per cent. of the whole of the electricity is generated from brown coal, and what can be done by low-temperature carbonisation is seen in their new station at Wolfersheim. Professor Dr. Rosin, of Dresden, says:
The first carbonising power plant has shown the way to a remunerative combination of electricity production by the low temperature distillation of brown coal.
I know that on these benches there are hon. Members who can speak on these matters with far greater authority than I can, but I would remind the House of the enormous supplies of cannell coal which we have in this country absolutely untouched. This cannell coal is highly gaseous and very easy to work. From the coal you get gas, oils and fuel, and from each of these could be generated an enormous amount of electricity. I only wish that I could think of the whole of South Wales, with its enormous possibilities in this connection, being linked up—the steel works, the tin works, the mines, with the generating plant. But it is not now. Besides rural development and industrial development, there is an enormous field for the electrification of main lines. Now with our national system it would not cost nearly as much as it would have done some years ago. I need not argue for the advantages that this would give—greater comfort, greater cleanliness and, of course, greater speed. For this Motion I would claim the support of Liberals, because on page 82 of the Yellow Book I see:
The most important development of the public concern during the next decade is likely to be in connection with electricity. We hope that neither thought nor money will he spared to furnish this country with a public-owned system of electrical supply which will be at least the equal of that of any other country in cheapness and efficiency.
It is vital to this country to have abundant and economical power for productive industry. We must strengthen our industries to meet their rivals. One
can see in the future an entire national, economic and social organisation based on electrical power. One can visualise large central stations, and from these central stations rivers of energy flowing out, so that you get the great industrial centres with cheap power easy to obtain, with the rural areas revived with greater industry, and certainly with a greater population, and for every house an abundant supply of electricity. I travelled down on Sunday with a collier. He told me that he had fitted up his house with electric power to this extent. He has a baby, and when it awakes at night, all that he has to do is to turn on the switch, put the bulb into the milk and the milk becomes warm. With advantages such as these properly put to the people, I cannot see but that the use of electricity throughout the country must go on. A great American industrialist at the opening of a power station, said:
I want to see all this art not only run the giant industries of the cities, but I want it also to be so humble and true in its social service, that we shall banish from the farmers' homes the drudgery that in the earlier days killed their wives.
I bring forward this Motion, not in a spirit of any criticism, but with the sole idea, of constructive contribution towards solving, or helping to solve, the problem of unemployment and helping forward the prosperity of this country.

Mr. WELLOCK: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having introduced this very important subject on this occasion; also, I think, they would like to congratulate him upon having put up such a splendid case. I desire to travel on rather similar ground, but from another point of view, that is, the point of view particularly of price or finance. I believe that one of the means to a fuller use of electricity and a greater development of the electricity supply of this country is in having a cheaper supply, and I think that if we examine the situation on all sides we shall see that that cheaper supply is possible. We are dealing here in electricity supply with a new form of public control. That public control has been changed or added to time after time during the last few years, and I think the time has come now for a further review of the situation in order that we may
find it is possible, and not only possible but necessary, to increase our control in order to secure a cheaper electricity supply to the people of this country.
Perhaps I may very briefly review the changes that have been made in regard to the electricity supply of this country as far as that is affected by legislation. Our first Electricity Act was in 1882, and when that Act was put on the Statute Book we had had, of course, 50 or 60 years' experience of the gas industry, and what the country had learnt in the development of the gas industry was utilised when we passed the Act of 1882. According to that Act, no private company could set up the production and distribution of electricity except with the consent of the local authorities in the areas concerned, and, even when it got powers, after seven years any local authority could buy it tip. That period was extended later from seven years to 21 years, and then in 1888 the period of time was extended from 21 to 42 years. In 1898 the question arose of extending the area of supply, and, after a Select Committee had sat upon the question, it was decided to give companies powers over large areas of supply for production and distribution, without any restriction whatsoever in regard to purchase by local authorities. Things went on in this way until 1918, when it was discovered that the industry as a whole was in a condition of chaos, that we had over the country hundreds of producing and distributing organisations, local authorities and private companies, and they had all kinds of frequencies, tensions, voltages and so on, and there was a great amount of waste owing to this chaotic condition.
In 1918 the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) appointed Sir Archibald Williamson to inquire into this question, and the result of that inquiry was that we had the first modern Electricity Act in 1919. That was a very important Act, indeed. By means of that Act we got our Electricity Commissioners, who had the power to survey the whole country, map it into areas, and make suggestions in regard to the closing down of stations, the concentration of stations and the formation of grids to operate from one end of the Country to another. The Commissioners did remarkably good work in a very short time, but it was recognised that their powers were very limited, simply because
they could not enforce their decisions. Both local authorities and private companies were afraid of losing their identity and the control of their powers, with the result that they were not prepared to accept the findings or recommendations of the Electricity Commission. Therefore, it was found necessary to increase the power of the State or the Commissioners in this respect, and so we had the Weir Committee set up by the Leader of the late Government early in 1925. They reported after a few months, and as the result of that inquiry we had the Electricity Act of 1926. Compulsory powers were vested in the Electricity Board, and by means of that Board there has been a tremendous transformation throughout the country. There has been great concentration upon the stations which could produce most satisfactorily, so that we have been able to reduce the price very considerably.
My hon. Friend has given some indication to the House of the advance that has been made in distribution during the last few years. Taking the records of the Electricity Commissioners, I find that from 1924 to 1929 there has been an increased production of something like 75 per cent., and, furthermore, I notice, in regard to fuel costs, there has been, between 1925 and 1929, a reduction of no less than 20 per cent. If we take into consideration the tremendous advance in the production and consumption of electricity and the great reduction in the cost of its production, we shall agree that there ought to have been greater reductions in price than have resulted. One difficulty is that we have not up to date price figures. The last figures of the Electricity Commissioners are for 1925–26. For the London and Home Counties we have figures a year later, 1927–28. Although we have not all the figures that we want, we have sufficient available to show the possibilities in the direction of price reduction. The figures that I want to quote as figures of comparison are between municipal authorities on the one hand and the private companies on the other. Let us take the figures of the Commissioners in their Report of 1925–26 relating to lighting and the domestic use of electricity. We find that for lighting and domestic purposes the price in municipal concerns was 3.38 pence, whereas in the case of the companies it was 4.95 pence. If we come
to power we find that in the municipal concerns the charge was 1.01 pence, and in the companies 97 pence. That is a slight advantage on the side of the companies in the case of power, but there is a big advantage in price for lighting and domestic current in the case of the municipal authorities.
We find, if we examine the figures more strictly, that the municipal authorities are gradually improving their position for the future benefit of consumers. Take, for example, one fact: In 1925–26 no less than £742,031 went to the relief of rates, and in that year £9,000,000 was taken out of revenue and put into capital expenditure. That is a very important matter; it really means adding £9,000,000 to the benefit of the consumers. There are no loan charges, no interest to be charged on that £9,000,000. In other words the municipal authorities strengthened their financial position by £9,000,000 in 1925–26 as a result of making capital expenditure out of their revenue.
Take another factor. The municipal authorities, in addition to paying their large interest and loan charges, paid off a percentage of their capital costs each year. The result has been that whereas the amount of capital invested in municipal electricity concerns was actually £125,500,000, the amount actually standing as debt in 1925–26 was £77,000,000. Let us compare that with the position of the private companies. They are responsible for only one-third of the total supply, whereas the municipal authorities are responsible for two-thirds of the supply throughout the country. In 1925–26 the capital invested in the companies was £62,500,000, yet the debt upon the municipal authorities for double the value of undertakings was only £77,000,000. That shows that in the future the municipal authorities of the country will be in a very much stronger position for supplying cheap electricity than the private companies.
Then there is a further factor. Let us take into consideration the balance in hand in the case of the private companies and of the municipal authorities. We find that the balances in hand in the case of the municipal authorities were £10,500,000, in 1925–26, and £16,000,000 in the case of the private companies.
We must remember always that the municipal authorities have control of undertakings that are of twice the value of those of the private companies. What is the meaning of having £16,000,000 in hand in these private companies? The meaning is that before very long the greater part of that £16,000,000 will be distributed as bonus shares, whereas the money ought to go to the consumers in the form of cheap electricity. Instead of that it will go into the pockets of the shareholders.
If we make a comparison in the London and Home Counties area between the local authorities on the one hand and the private companies on the other, the figures are even more startling than they are in the case of the nation as a whole. We find that the percentage of reduction and consumption is 38½ per cent. under the municipal authorities, and 61½ per cent. in the case of the private companies. Let me take next the question of price. If we take the Metropolitan Boroughs for 1927–28 the price for lighting and domestic purposes was 2.62 pence but if we take the private companies for the same area we get a figure of 4.3 pence. If we take the extra-London area we get the municipal authorities providing electricity at 2.48 pence per unit, while the private companies charge 4.56 pence per unit. In the case of power supply there is a similar difference. For example you get 1.18 pence in the Metropolitan Boroughs, and 3.41 pence in the private companies within the same area.
If we come to bulk supplies we find that in the metropolitan boroughs it is 55 pence, and in the private companies it is 79 pence within the same area. Here we are dealing with vast populations and very similar areas, and yet there are these remarkable differences in the prices charged for electricity in those areas. During the year 1927–28 the local authorities paid in relief of rates no less than £92,081. I think we ought to recognise that electricity is a gilt-edged security in this country. It is a monopoly; every electricity company enjoys monopoly powers; nobody can encroach on its area. Electricity to-day is as much a national and domestic necessity as are food and water. It has come to stay and it is bound to develop. Thus everyone who has money invested in electricity knows very well that the Elec-
tricity Commissioners and the Ministry of Transport will be bound to allow the undertakings to make such a charge as will provide a profit. But when the undertakings have made a reasonable profit, seeing that they have a monopoly and that they are dealing with a vital national necessity, there ought to be very much more severe control over their finance and their charges than is exercised at the present time.
I have been making particular investigations. I had in my mind a particular electricity area which has to operate as a unit under a joint electricity board. In that particular area there are three smaller areas, all densely populated. I find there three different prices for current, and the differences are very marked. I am speaking now of electricity for domestic and lighting purposes. In all three areas, I believe, there is a fixed basic charge, which runs out at something like 1s. per week for a £12 house. I am assuming the case of a man who occupies a "council" house, and, after all, he is the person whom we have to consider. Here I would like to support what my hon. Friend said in regard to the warming of milk for the baby. We sometimes hear the question asked, "When are the women of the country to have an eight hours day?" I suggest that if we could give our women a nice "council" house, an electricity house, there would be something approaching an eight hours day for them.
Take the case of the house that is rated at about £12 a year. In the three areas of which I am speaking, the basic charge for electricity runs to about 48s. to 50s. a year, or is a week. In those three areas, as I have said, there are three distinct charges for the current consumed. In one area it is a halfpenny per unit for all purposes; in No. 2 area it is ¼d. per unit; and in No. 3 area it is 1d. per unit. I was speaking only last Saturday to some working men who live in the first of those three areas, and they told ne that they consume neither gas nor coal, nor oil, and that they consume nothing but electricity. One man said that he consumed about 4,000 units of electricity per year, and his total bill was round about £10, including the basic charge. That worked out at about 4s. a week. It is a remarkable achievement.
But, leaving that area, we pass to the second area, where the price is ¼d. There,
of course, a man is paying £3 a year more; and in the third area where the charge is a penny the man has to pay £6 more than his neighbour in the first area. These variations make all the difference between having and not having electricity in the home. Here is an interesting fact about those three areas: Nos. 1 and 2 are under municipal authorities, but No. 3 is under a private firm, and as a matter of fact is one of those concerns which is under the control of the Greater London and Counties Trust. I could give figures in regard to that company, and it would be easy to explain why the differences exist when the finances on which the companies are based are understood.
It is worth while to go a little further into this question of finance. In my own area, which I know very well, I have been looking into the condition of affairs of one electricity company. I find that in 1927 a bonus share was distributed for every share held. That meant £350,000. The next year, 1928, according to the last balance sheet, they paid 8 per cent. on the total amount of capital which, of course, included the bonus shares. I ask the House whether we are going to tolerate a condition of affairs like that in the case of a gilt-edged security enjoying a Government monopoly—100 per cent. bonus shares in one year and 8 per cent. dividend in the next year upon the total amount of capital. The time has come when there should be a re-investigation of the Acts, and we should see whether further powers ought not to be given to the Government and to the Commissioners to take control of the prices in those areas.
I would like to carry the matter a little further, because there are a large number of people in this country who are very much concerned about what is going on in some of the big combines and holding companies that are operating in this country. I mention the particular case of the Greater London and Counties Trust and I do so in no personal way. I do not intend to bring in any personalities, but it is a question of national urgency that such a company as the Greater London and Counties Trust should operate in the way in which it is operating now and may operate in the future, unless it is very carefully watched. This very important trust was taken over early this year by an American combine or holding company. At that time the trust had
under its control seven huge companies some of which were also holding companies with a number of subsidiaries under their control. Since that time the trust has taken over a number of other concerns with the result that it is now operating in 20 or 30 counties extending from the Wash across Somersetshire, Shropshire, Gloucestershire, Woreestershire and down to the South Coast. It is operating in ways which give cause for concern to the people who are being supplied with electricity.
Let me mention the terms upon which the trust is buying out the different companies which are coming under its control. I take as an example Edmundson's. This is a concern which has under its control about 12 subsidiary companies and it was taken over in February, 1928, on a basis of £3 10s. per £1 share. The price, a little before that time, had not been half that amount but the point is that those values have been built up out of a monopoly. I am not particularly concerned as to whether this money is owned by American or British people. What I am concerned about is how, on a basis of 70s. for each £1 share, the people in those areas are to be guaranteed cheap electricity. It cannot be done; and Members in every part of the House will, I am sure, recognise that this country can never be supplied with cheap electricity as long as such financial operations are permitted. If we examine the financial position of Edmundson's we find that in 1924 they had a bonus share distribution of 66⅔ per cent.—with a Government monopoly. That means to say that every person who held a £1 share in Edmundson's in 1924 drew in 1928 from the Greater London and Counties Trust, £5 16s. 8d.
That is only one case. Let me give another. Only a few months ago the Greater London and Counties Trust also took over the Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire company at 50s. per 21 share. There were just over 1,000,000 ordinary shares in that company. I have looked up in the "Times" the prices at which those shares changed hands during last year, and I find that they were at anything from 28s. to 30s. Here again I am not so much concerned about that aspect of the matter. The point is that these are £1 shares in a gilt-edged
security; they have been sold at £2 10s. each, and the people in that area, which is my own area, have quite made up their minds that those who have paid 50s. each for these shares have no philanthropic end in view as far as the users of electricity are concerned. I believe that as long as this condition of affairs exists the people of the country will never be able to get cheap electricity.
It may be said that there is a right of redress, and that an application can be made to the Minister of Transport to have prices reviewed. I know that certain opportunities of that kind are given under the 1926 Act, and I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has recently been using those powers to the utmost, but I suggest that neither my right hon. Friend nor any other Minister of Transport, can do what is necessary in this matter with the limited powers at his disposal. The Act provides that 20 consumers or a local authority may have prices reviewed on application. That seems simple and easy, but if 20 consumers in an area ask to have the prices reviewed what happens? The company concerned sends up a case, and we all know how well the controllers of these companies can make out a case. I have followed the routine which has to be adopted if a successful application is to be made to get electricity prices reduced, and I have full details of one case which can mention if necessary. A local authority was concerned with other local authorities in the same area. They had a conference, and it was decided to go into the matter. Then the persons concerned had to engage in a great deal of correspondence to get information as to prices in similar areas in different parts of the country. Then they had to go into the accounts of the companies with which they were concerned which involved a large amount of time and investigation.
One man was so concerned about the ratifications of the companies revealed during this inquiry that he wrote a pamphlet on the subject, and at the end of the pamphlet he had to confess that he had not been able to get to the bottom of the matter. They had a further conference to which they invited representatives of the companies concerned. After that conference several offers were made from the companies, but these were
declared unsatisfactory, and it was decided to take the matter to the Minister. All those proceedings had to be gone through in order to get an investigation upon a sound basis which would ensure success with respect to the reduction of the prices. It is obvious, to me at any rate, from the illustrations which I have given that something more drastic must be done in regard to the control of electricity prices.
I suggest that every electricity company in the country should be brought under strict review by the Electricity Commissioners or some specially appointed committee, account being taken of any cheapening in the cost of electricity or of any cheaper supply being made possible, as happens year after year, and inquiry being made as to whether these advantages are being passed on to the consumer or not. I think that must be done in the first place. In the second place as regards electricity, which, as I have said, is a gilt-edged security, all distributions of bonus shares should be prevented. Something even more drastic than that ought to be done in those areas where local authorities are up against a position of the kind which I have tried to describe. Facilities should be given to authorities who desire complete control over the electricity undertakings for the formation of joint holding boards of those authorities. I am speaking of electricity areas and if, in one area, the local authorities desire to come together and form a holding company to control the distribution of electricity in their area, necessary powers ought to be given them.
I wonder what is the attitude of the Liberal party on this question. This is a matter of great public concern and the Liberal party are for private enterprise as against nationalisation, but, at the same time, they have favoured municipalisation and I believe they would be in favour of such a proposal as I have made. I think it is the logical development of what they have done in the past. It must be admitted that the national control of electricity as far as it has gone has been absolutely successful. The Commissioners are doing good work. Here we have a State organisation, State experts, State brains and State money running the grid system of this country —and then we hand over the fruits of
their work to private enterprise and allow private enterprise to treat public money and a public service in the way I have described.
I could have gone further into the case of the Greater London and Counties Trust. I could have asked what is to be the future of that company. They are bringing a common management to bear upon these various concerns with the result that those firms are likely to lose their identities and once they lose their identities it is possible that this entire concern may be refloated on the market at a tremendously inflated figure. I do not think there is a person, apart from the directors of the company, who is able to say what is the capital value of these undertakings. How are we to know, if these shares should be floated, to what extent inflation is entering into these market operations. These are very serious matters and as we are dealing here with a service in which already a large measure of public control is enjoyed, we wish to express our view that public control ought to be extended in the way I have suggested.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member who seconded this Motion made the burden of his indictment the crimes of private companies as compared with municipal enterprise. I do not propose to take up the cudgels in favour of private enterprise. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) is fortunate enough to catch your eye, he will be able to deal very effectively with that aspect of the question. Apart from that, the hon. Member was very indignant at certain alleged bonus shares which have been issued by various corporations, and at the various high charges which he alleges are made. I think the latter part of his speech answered the first part, because he indicated, as indeed we all know, that under very easy circumstances there is a right of appeal to the Minister of Transport, if a local body or 20 consumers of electricity in an area consider they are aggrieved, though of course that appeal cannot be made at less than a certain interval of time. He pointed out that an appeal such as that necessitated certain investigations. He did not state, however, that any decision unfair to the consumers in any area had been given by
the Minister of Transport, whether by the present Minister or by myself, in cases which had been brought to his notice, working through the Electricity Commissioners. Therefore, with all respect, his vehemence left me quite unmoved, because there is, under the Act of 1926, a perfectly fair and not. cumbersome tribunal to which the aggrieved consumer can appeal, and the ultimate responsibility is with the Minister of Transport, which means that the ultimate responsibility is with this House, the Members of which can criticise the Minister if they think he has not done his duty properly.
In that connection, may I say how profoundly I dissent, in spite of the able speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin), on which I would like to congratulate him, from that portion of his remarks in which he hinted, in no vague terms, that the Electricity Commissioners were inefficient, that they were dilatory, and that ginger ought to be applied to them. I am sure my hon. Friend opposite, in his short experience of office as Minister of Transport, will agree with me, who have had an experience of the Electricity Commissioners of nearly six years, in two periods—

Mr. HOPKIN: I made no comment at all on the efficiency of the Commissioners; I merely said that the procedure is altogether too slow.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member means to say that the procedure which the Commission laid down is dilatory and should be speeded up, let me ask the House to consider the position of the Commissioners. It is true that since 1926 they have had considerably more power, but before the Act of 1926 they had only powers of persuasion, and the hon. Member, who very truly remarked in his speech upon the jealousy on the part of local authorities and of private companies of any interference by a Government Department, must remember that until 1926 the Commissioners were handicapped, that they had one hand tied behind their backs in dealing with the electricity supply of this country. Indeed, I marvel that they did so much under such adverse conditions. But I see that I carry the hon. Member so far with me, and I am sure that since the Act of 1926 was passed, they have done their very
best. We must remember that they have a very difficult job, a very responsible office, to carry through, and any mistake on their part may react for years to come. Therefore, while we would all like a Government Department to act as quickly as private enterprise acts, and while we should all wish that a Government Department was not inevitably tied up with red tape, yet I think the gentlemen who form the Electricity Commission have on the whole deserved very well of the electrical industry of this country; and I am quite sure that they will note the remarks of the hon. Member when they read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
The burden of the excellent speech of the hon. Member was that we in this country are behindhand in electrical development. That is quite true. I do not think it is the fault of anybody in particular, though perhaps it is partly the fault of our national characteristic of individualism. Each and all of us like to carry on our business in our own way, and each and all of us like to carry on our company business in our own way, and we do not, so quickly as other nations, combine together for mass enterprise, whether it be municipal, national, or under private auspices. But there is one fact that perhaps the hon. Member has not considered in summing up our position in electrical enterprise, and that is that in this country we have a gas industry more highly organised and more efficient than is the case in any other country in the world. Therefore, when you have in a country an industry already well established, as it was well established in the last years of the last century, when electricity became a practical proposition, it is much more difficult for a newer form to increase as rapidly as in a country where you can go straight from candles or lamps to electricity.
Then, again, there is our system of local self-government to be remembered. When electricity first became a practical proposition, you could not transmit electricity more than half a dozen or a dozen miles, and therefore all the Orders and Acts given for the generation and distribution of electricity in this country, since you could not send it over large areas, almost inevitably were given over to a municipality to work inside its own area or to a private company to work inside a municipal area or a county area.
Therefore, you had an uneconomic position. When it became possible to send electricity for 100 Or 150 miles, you had these innumerable small generating stations up and down the country, producing current, most of them, not on an economic basis, but on a very uneconomic basis; and there was no power to change the position. Then the Act of 1926, for which I was responsible, came along, and time only will show whether or not that Act is really going to be successful. Naturally I, as the fond father, think it will be very successful, but I am encouraged to hope for the best, because I remember that hon. Members who now sit opposite, but who were then on this side of the House, criticised it as apt to bolster up private enterprise, and hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and his friends then denounced it as a measure of pure Socialism. So I hope and trust that that Act is the happy mean and that it combines the best of both worlds, the worlds of Socialism and of private enterprise.
But, after all, what will it do? I think it will enable us very soon, as far as the production and creation of electricity are concerned, to pick up with the rest of the world. It will reduce the 580 electricity stations now in existence in this country down to 90 or 100, joined together with a grid, and thereby enable the creation of electricity to be done far more cheaply than at the present time; and I see no reason—and when I was at the Ministry I was officially advised that there was no reason—to suppose that the figures on which that Act was founded will not work out in practice. Those figures were that by 1940, 10 years from now, the bill to the electricity consumers of this country would be £44,500,000 less than if the Act had not been passed. If that Act does that, it will have done something that most Acts do not do, because generally Acts of Parliament impose a charge upon the country and do not save the money of the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country.
The next point that the hon. Gentleman made was to ask why the main lines are not electrified. I think the answer is that the general managers, the directors, and, I suppose, the shareholders in their annual meetings do not consider, at. the present moment—I underline those words —that main line electrification would pay, and if it does not pay now, under the
present management, I do not suppose that if the railways were nationalised, it would pay, in fact, the position would probably be worse. As far as I know, the main line electrification of the railways in Italy and France at the present time is at a standstill. They have electrified a great deal, but they are rather apprehensive of what the result is going to be, and though they have not decided against further electrification, they are at present holding their hands. If I were the general manager of a railway undertaking in this country, I should say this, "Let us wait and see at what price the Central Board in two or three years' time can produce unlimited energy, at what price we can buy it, and when we know what the price of the commodity is to be on which we have to found our facts and our figures, then we will decide whether or not we will electrify our lines." Until that is done, I cannot see how any cautious general manager could advise his directors to electrify their main lines.
I am not dealing with the suburban services, which are a very different proposition. The suburban service on the Southern line has, I believe, paid hand over fist, and they are now proceeding, apart from any stimulus given by the present Goverment, further to electrify their lines. But, of course, not all the main lines have suburban services like the Southern line. All honour to the Southern line that, by then electrification, they have not only done good to the people who travel on their lines, but have also benefited their own shareholders, who are thus reaping the reward of then enterprise.
5.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen gave some details about the experiment which is now being made at Bedford to deal with the very difficult problem of rural electrification. As the author of that scheme, may I say how much I appreciate the way in which he spoke of it? At the present moment we have solved in this country the question of providing electrical current to the inhabitants in the urban areas. I think I am right in saying that at present distributing companies are authorised to supply 98 on 99 per cent. of the population who live in the urban areas. It may he that as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock), who seconded the Motion, said, the inhabitants are not satisfied with the price which
they are paying, but I am not dealing with the price. I say that in the urban areas 98 or 99 per cent. of the inhabitants live in areas covered by authorised undertakings. In the rural areas, I do net suppose that more than 60 per cent. of the population are now residing in areas handed over to distributing companies or to municipalities, because many of these municipalities have power to provide electricity in rural areas. Not more than 60 per cent. of the population in rural areas in Great Britain are in areas of authorised undertakers, and not all of those 60 per cent. are receiving electricity. As to the other 40 per cent., the hon. Gentleman rather hinted that he thought that within a very short time it would be right and proper for them to be in a position to get electricity if they wished to do so. I join with him in saying that we should do our very utmost to provide electricity for them, but it always seems to me so uneconomical to run a line, say, up a highland glen to three or four scattered farms, or up a Welsh valley, however nice the sue may shine over the Welsh hills, for you cannot tax the people of this country in order' to provide electricity there. After all, it is a matter of opinion as to where we should draw the line.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: In very many cases, especially in the industrial valleys, lines are already there.

Colonel ASHLEY: In the industrial areas they would serve the industrial population, and 98 per cent. of the urban population have lines and use them. I was much exercised, as anybody must be who occupies the responsible position of Minister of Transport, three or four years ago as to what could be done to extend the use of electricity in rural areas at a price which the inhabitants could pay. It is no use offering them electricity at 1s. a unit, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer would provide money for an immediate and universal extension of uneconomic lines in all the rural areas. The purse of Fortunatus would be required to do anything of that sort. I. think, however, that I succeeded in inducing the Development Commissioners to give some assistance from the national purse—after all, what are the Development Commissioners for, except to adopt
these schemes?—in order that we might make a pure experiment in a typical rural area, to see whether, as a matter of fact, the inhabitants in the rural districts would take advantage of electricity on a fair basis. When I am talking of rural areas, I am not thinking only of the farm or the farm labourer; I am thinking of people who live in rural areas, because there are more people in rural areas who are not engaged in agriculture than there are people engaged in that industry. I hope as a result of this experiment at Bedford if it is a success—as indeed I am sure it will be, after the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman—that long before it comes to full fruition, namely, five or six years time, we shall have both the municipal authorities and the private authorities so satisfied by the experiment, that they will launch out and throw their bread upon the waters, so that it will return to them after a few years, and we shall do something to lighten the burden of the country districts.
We who disagree as to the road along which we should travel to prosperity for this country, whether it be for the industrial or the rural areas, must be apprehensive to see the congestion in the big towns and to find in God's country, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, these miles of country with no one living there; but I think that the advent of the motor omnibus, and the wireless, and, above all, of cheap electricity, will turn the tide, and that we shall see the yeoman farmer re-established in the country districts and better access provided for the toilers of the big town. Just think, here you have this experiment at Bedford over 65,000 acres with a population of 16.000. What, at the very worst, is it going to cost the country? £8,000, which is merely a bagatelle, for it will be repaid without interest, and the country will not 'be much worse off for having lent £8,000 to Bedford Corporation. To that body I should like to pay a special tribute, for they have been most helpful in this matter. All they said was, "We want to help the Government of the day, but we have our ratepayers to consider, and therefore we cannot go to the ratepayers with an uneconomic proposition We must have some Government guarantee, so that we can meet our ratepayers and convince them that this scheme is sound and good."
May I say a word on rural amenities? It is very appropriate to this subject, because in some quarters we see letters written to the Press denouncing the electrical lines which are going up all over the country; and the writers take up such an impossible position, that, if their wishes were carried out, we should have no electricity at all in this country. We must have a sense of proportion. The first thing to lay down is that we must have cheap electricity in rural areas. Having laid that down, let us consider how we can mitigate any destruction of the beauty of the scenery, and, above all, not to do anything to prevent the American and other tourists coming here and seeing our beautiful country and, incidentally, leaving some of their dollars behind. When I was at the Ministry, I tried to combine these two things, and I laid down as an invariable rule that any land under the National Trust must have the lines underground. In the New Forest the popularly elected authorities, who look after the interest of the commoners, took up the position that they would not insist on the lines going underground, because they wanted the villages in the New Forest and round the Forest to have cheap electricity; and it was agreed that the lines should be sent by a route as little conspicuous as possible. That is the happy medium, and if we carry on on these lines, there will be no hampering of electricity enterprise and no destruction of rural amenities.
The last subject to which I want to refer is not strictly relevant to the Motion, although it is relevant to rural electrification. Members have no doubt from time to time during the last two or three years seen statements in the Press about the great electricity scheme of the Irish Free State. They are harnessing the Shannon and having a hydroelectric installation there, and sending out lines north, south, east and west, all over the Free State. It has generally been held that this scheme, although ambitious, though doing credit to the Free State, will not pay. In my opinion, that is wrong, and I venture to prophesy that that enterprise will richly repay the Irish Free State Government, that there will be an ample demand for all the current which they can produce, and that this expansion will enable the small
towns and villages in the Irish Free State, of which there are many scattered about, to start small rural industries employing 12 to 15, and even up to 30 men. Cheap electric power will bring prosperity to the Irish countryside so that the Irish farmer will not only be able to send his goods here for our consumption, but be able to buy some of our English goods which are crying out so much for good and free markets.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The House is indeed fortunate in having had the opportunity of listening to two such admirable speeches as were delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) who moved this Motion, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock) who seconded it. Both my hon. Friends asked what the Liberal party were doing in this matter. The Liberal party are proud of what they have done. The harnessing of the water power of the country and its utilisation for public and industrial purposes, have been in the forefront of the Liberal party programme; and, if I may say so without offence, I gathered that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen was an ardent student of what is now well known as the "Yellow Book on Coal and Power," published by the Liberal party. That is not a book which was hurriedly written; it was carefully studied by the most expert brains in the country. I was glad to feel that once again the party opposite, like the party above the Gangway in the last Government, went to that book, as to other Liberal books, for constructive statesmanship. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, who dealt more with the urban problem than with the rural problem. He dealt to a great extent with admirable lucidity with the question of trusts and of prices. The question of price is, of course, of primary importance in a national undertaking of this kind. There is not any doubt that this country is behind all other countries in the use which it is making of water power, but I am more concerned with the use which is being made of the water power available in the rural districts. Apart from one or two suggestions which were made in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, I subscribe to every word that he said.
It is quite clear that when dealing with the rural aspects of the problem you cannot apply the same economic standards as when you are dealing with the problem which was discussed at length by the hon. Member for Stourbridge. Take my own native Highlands, or take any other part of the country which is sparsely populated. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen pointed out that in almost all rural districts, not only in Wales but in England and Scotland, this question of the provision or utilisation of water-power is at the root of unemployment and at the root of depopulation. There is not any doubt about that. In the rural districts of Scotland depopulation has been going on for a long time, and it is a melancholy fact that during the last decade it has been much more prevalent than in the decade preceding it. A good many of us have thought that one of the main ways, indeed my hon. Friend went so far as to say it was the main way, of curing unemployment or depopulation in the rural districts is the proper and the cheap utilisation of the water-power which exists there. I do not know what the reason may be, hut the rising generation prefer the cinema to the sunset. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen made it perfectly plain that in the rural districts there should be less darkness and lighter labour; there is no doubt that we have to make the countryside more attractive for the rising generation. One of the ways to make it attractive is to give an abundant and a cheap supply of electricity from the water-power available in those districts.
I have had an experience which may not be without interest to the House. Last week I gave evidence upstairs before a Committee composed of five members of their Lordships' House. It would be quite improper of me to make any comment upon the decision at which their Lordships arrived, but the fact remains that they did not find the preamble of a Bill called the Grampians Electricity Bill proved. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) seems to agree with their Lordships, but I venture to think there is not another man in the House who would agree, in the circumstances; and if I may say so without in any way impugning either the integrity, the honesty or the
judgment of those who listened to the evidence on the Bill, I would say that it was a Bill which was to provide cheap electricity over a wide and sparsely populated area in the Highlands where depopulation has been going on rapidly decade by decade, and it was a Bill, which, in my judgment, did not really affect rural amenities. It was quite unlike another Bill brought forward some time before. It was a Bill which did not, in the judgment of those more directly concerned, even injure the sport of the Highlands. It was a Bill which, in the judgment of those who promoted it—and it was promoted by private enterprise with the support of the intelligent Electricity Commissioners of this country —would provide the opportunity, in any case, for the establishment of those small industries mentioned in the speech of the late Minister of Transport. There is an admirable sea-board there, with some of the finest harbourage, all the Royal Burghs in that part of the country desired it, all the rural workers, the farmers, the smallholders wished to have it, and yet for some reason or other the Bill was not accepted by the Committee.
There is something wrong somewhere. It makes me feel inclined to support the Motion which stands in the name of the Lord Privy Seal to-day saying there ought to be some method by which Bills of public importance, which undoubtedly provide opportunities for labour in the rural districts, may be more expeditiously and more cheaply placed upon the Statute Book. Nobody is more anxious than I am to preserve the rural amenities. There is nobody more proud of the magnificent rural amenities of the Highlands of Scotland, and I should be the last person to support any Bill which I thought was going to destroy for all time the picturesque grandeur and majesty of that part of the world. But we have to face the facts. There is no doubt that it is an eyesore to see even telegraph poles erected over a beautiful part of a country district. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) got powers two or three years ago to go into one of the most beautiful parts of the Highlands and to carry out a gigantic electricity scheme. I believe he himself opened there the other day the largest tunnel in this country. All of us who love the Highlands felt in our hearts
that it was a pity that those beautiful places should have the marks of modern industry upon them; but what are you going to do? All that we can legitimately demand of the House of Commons, as the superior court of the Realm in the long run, is that there should be no reckless or needless vandalism, but if we are going to have industry for our people in the rural districts, it is absolutely necessary, and I am sorry to have to say it, to have some blemish of that sort upon the landscape.
I come now to the reason why I have risen to speak on this Motion. I read the Motion with very great care, and I agreed with a good deal of it, but I notice that it does not go to the length of Nationalisation. There is no attempt in the Motion to assert the fact that Nationalisation is the only possible way of remedying this grievance. All that it does say is that wherever there is a national effort it should be in some form or other controlled in the interests of the nation. Everybody will accept that; it is a sort of mixture of the delectables which was mentioned by the late Minister of Transport when he said he was very glad to find a scheme which combined the best parts of Socialism with the best parts of private enterprise in industrialism. So are we all. But what I want to ask the Government spokesman is this. The part to which I have referred—and I have no doubt that many other parts will suffer in the same way—will now be a derelict area. The progressive farmer who is anxious to use electricity to save labour on his farm; the smallholder who is in the same position; the town dweller and the housewife who are anxious to save labour by having cheap electricity; and others who are anxious to establish small industries in order to maintain the youth of the country in the land of their birth —all these are now told by a Select Committee that they cannot have what is their heart's desire.
What are the Government going to do? I believe myself that the Electricity Commissioners have done a great deal of work, but all they can do at present is to recommend, to put forward and to suggest schemes. The Government are bound to go a step further. When a large part of the population are extremely anxious to have the same benefits accorded to them as are enjoyed by the
people who live in towns and industrial centres they are entitled to the help of Parliament, and what I want to find out from the Minister of Transport is whether it is the programme of the Government to help in cases such as I have mentioned. Is it the programme of the Government to make this country take its place in the forefront of industrial countries, whether from the urban or the rural point of view, by the proper utilisation of the water power available in the country. The party to which I belong have always maintained that everything possible must be done in order to gain that end, and I shall be very glad to know what the Government propose to do now.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred to the fate of a private Bill in another place. I quite agree with him that it would be wrong on the part of this House to refer to that matter in any detail, or in any sense to appear to pass judgment upon the decision of the Committee. The position of the Government on that situation is determined by the provisions of the law, and these give the Government no power whatever themselves to promote a scheme in the place of the scheme which was rejected on preamble by the Committee of their Lordships' House. As long as the law provides that the only people who can conduct electricity undertakings are either local municipal authorities or local private companies, the Government must be in a position of relative incapacity to deal with a situation of that kind; because it must be dependent upon the initiative or the financial responsibility either of local authorities or of private companies. But I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an experience, this is a happening, which is not without its lesson, and that it is one which must certainly be taken into account by any Government and any Minister of Transport in considering any legislation which may be required in the future.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to support the Motion. It is true that it does not in express terms go to the point of Nationalisation. I presume that my hon. Friend was anxious not to drive a wedge into the Liberal party, and that might have happened, for I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend
the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hop-kin) who moved the Resolution in such an admirable speech and with the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock), who seconded it in another admirable speech, that nothing is more explicit in the policy and pledges of the Liberal party than the declaration of the Yellow Book that electricity ought to be a service owned and controlled by and responsible to the nation. Unfortunately there is sometimes a difference between what is contained in books and votes on Bills which come before this House.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I want to avoid any misunderstanding, but I was explaining the point at one of our meetings.

Mr. MORRISON: I was only expressing my regret that such a great opportunity should have been lost. I quite understand that such meetings must be held. I welcome the Motion before the House, and I rather gather from the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that in all probability this Motion will be concurred in by the House. Even the Members of the Conservative party cannot resist this Motion, because it affirms that the national interest must be paramount. This discussion is valuable in relation to one of our most important industries, an industry which has the greatest possibilities for our country in the course of industrial development. It would not be wise for me to dispute that more progress has been made in electrical development in certain other countries which have been mentioned than we have made, but it must not be assumed that we are not making very great progress in electrical development.
I will tell the House what my country is doing, even if I think my country is not doing all that it might do. The figures for recent years are very impressive as far as electrical progress is concerned. The number of kilowatts of generating plant installed in the year 1922–23 was 3,093,000. In the year 1927–28 this total had increased to 5,258,000, or an increase of 2,165,000. The units sold to consumers in 1920–21 were 3,512,000,000, and by 1927–28 the number went up to 7,003,000,000, which is practically double the units sold in 1920–21.

Colonel ASHLEY: Are those figures for 18 months?

Mr. MORRISON: They are for the year. The increase is going on, and the units sold per head of the population in 1921–22 were 73 and in 1927–28, 158. That is a very considerable increase. The fuel consumption per unit generated at steam stations gives a figure which reflects fairly exactly the efficiency of the generating plant. In 1920–21 it was 3.4 lbs. and in 1927–28 2.16 lbs. That shows more economical generation of electrical supply. The average revenue per unit sold to consumers was 2.48d. in 1921–22 and 1.55d. in 1927–28. This is an industry which is doing something to absorb labour, and the figures show that the number of staff workmen employed in the industry in 1922–23 was 36,000, whereas in 1927–28 it had gone up to 52,000, an increase of 16,000. I give those figures because, while I agree that it is quite right that we should be critical if we are not going ahead as fast as other countries, I do not think that we ought to under-estimate the progress we are making in this country.
Reference has been made to the question of prices. I know that prices on the average are falling. I have some figures comparing municipal prices with the prices of private undertakings. The figure for 1927–28 in the case of local authorities for all classes of supply was 1.56d. per unit. For lighting and heating the price in 1927–28 was 3.39d. in the case of local authorities and 4.52d. in the case of companies, both of them showing a considerable reduction. In the case of public lighting, the charge of local authorities was 1.75 in 1927–28 as compared with 2.19d. in the case of companies, both of them showing a reduction. In the case of traction the figures were 1.09 for local authorities in 1927–28 and 0.75 for companies which is lower in price than the municipal prices This is probably accounted for by the fact that the companies deal more extensively with traction supply. In the case of power the cost in 1927–28 as regards companies was 0.91d. and the figure for local authorities was 0.95d. which shows a slight superiority in the case of companies. The total average revenue under all these headings in 1927–28 was 1.56d. for local authorities and 1.54d. for companies.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: What was the density of population in the area of supply?

Mr. MORRISON: It would be interesting to give those figures, but such statistics as those can be exceedingly misleading. Very often a company or a municipality supplies a considerable amount in the shape of a bulk supply to other users, and this fact would tend to reduce the average price of the supply. On the other hand, we have places like Poplar or the Borough of Stepney where they have a considerable industrial load factor, and it would be unfair to compare the charges they make with the charges in the City of London, where the bulk of the consumption is for the lighting of offices, which is not a particularly good load. For these reasons, the figures dealing with prices must be considered with reserve, and to make an accurate calculation we should have to compare like with like and find out whether, in the instances used for the comparison, they are working under exactly the same economic conditions.
I should like to say that there is no question about the municipalities having made great progress. I know that some of the companies have been doing well, and there are ninny cases in which progress has been made in both branches of the electric service. What is the fundamental electrical problem? Unfortunately electricity cannot be stored like gas, and therefore it must be generated at the time electricity is being demanded. The demand for electricity during the 24 hours of the day and night varies very much according to what the human race is doing at any particular hour. The demand for electricity between midnight and six o'clock in the morning is very small. After six o'clock people get up and go to work, and the factories begin to work, with the result that the demand for electricity goes up. Between one and two o'clock in the day workpeople go to dinner and the demand for electricity goes down. Between four and six the industrial and private loads both have to be met and we get a peak load, then after six the workers go home, and down goes the curve.
The problem of the electricity supply industry is that plant must be available to generate the peak load. The plant
required to generate the peak load is going to be wasted during the part of the day when it is not required by the consumer. The basic problem of the electricity supply is load factor. Electricity is required for practically every industry in our country, and, obviously, the thing we have to do is to secure a maximum economic use of electricity during every hour of the day, so that generating plant will not stand idle during many hours. That was the policy of the Act of 1926. There is no question that that Act was a definite step forward in the progress of electricity supply, because the doctrine of the load factor is the basis upon which it works. The nation has got to control the generating plant of every electricity undertaking, and we have to see to it that the most efficient generating plants carry the maximum load in order that the plant will not be wasted. We must use the secondary stations as subsidiary generating undertakings, and we must gradually destroy those generating stations which are not required, and which cannot be efficiently worked. So this great Conservative Statute was based upon the doctrine that the State has the right to interfere with people in the use of their own property and their own capital, and I think that the Conservative Government was perfectly right in adopting that exceedingly Socialistic maxim in handling the electricity supply problem. If this industry had not been built up on the basis that people have the right to do, largely, what they like with their own capital, irrespective of the national interest, neither my right hon. Friend, when he was at the Ministry, nor I, now, would be faced with the problems with which we are concerned. Therefore, I welcome the position that we are going to interfere with people in the use of their own capital, and are going to see to it that that capital is used in the interests of the nation so far as we possibly can.
Then we are getting established this great development of big national stations, inter-connected, and so we get a national organisation and a national generation. Other stations are becoming inter-connected, including many London stations, and here again one often has to fight local prejudice, local interests and local enthusiasms that sometimes stand in the way. I had my own earliest
electrical training on the Electricity Committee of the Hackney Metropolitan Borough Council, and a very good education I received there. I remember that the Council was inclined to say that the test of the success of this undertaking was how far it gave cheap electricity to the private lighting consumer. It was always inclined to think, if we were giving a bulk supply to a municipality or a company next door at a very low rate, that we were robbing the domestic consumer in Hackney for the benefit of the Islington Borough Council or the North Metropolitan Company, or for some other reason. They could not see it, and therefore I told the electrical engineer that he must make it simple, and must write a parable. He did. He wrote the parable of Mrs. Jones's pie, which became famous throughout the borough of Hackney. He said, "Mrs. Jones is cooking a pie in her own oven. Mrs. Brown, next door, is also cooking a pie in her own oven. If Mrs. Brown passes her pie in to Mrs. Jones, and lets Mrs. Jones cook both the pies, they will be cooked at half the cost that would be required if each lady had cooked her own pie." In that way we made the Borough Council understand the advantages of bulk supply and inter-working, of shutting down one station and keeping another going during the week-end, and so on.
To help in solving the problem of the load factor, we have to secure somehow a more diverse use of electricity for various purposes. The use of electricity only for lighting in private houses ought not to content the heart of the electricity supply engineer. As a matter of fact, it is not a very attractive load as a strict commercial proposition, and Summer Time has not made it any better. But the use of electricity for lighting is relatively small in relation to the capital costs of installation, and, therefore, we want to encourage people to use electricity, not only for lighting, but for heating, which I agree is another doubtful load from certain points of view but nevertheless brings in a little diversity—sometimes, perhaps, a bit too much; for cooking, for hot water, for the kettle, and for the immersion heater, which will warm the baby's milk, which was referred to earlier; also for the flat iron, the vacuum cleaner, and for doing the weekly wash. All these things encourage
a demand for electricity at differing hours of the day, and so help us to level out the load curve. Most of the things I have mentioned I am using with success, or, at least, my wife is using them with success, in our own house. Some of them we have not yet got, because we cannot afford, within the salary of the Minister of Transport, to purchase them.
That is on the side of domestic supply, and I venture to say that the use of electricity for domestic purposes is miles behind what it might be. We have got to get push into the industry; we have got to get a conviction on the part of the undertakers themselves that electricity can do anything; and we have also got to get a belief that the way to get people to use electricity for all purposes is to make the price as low as possible, and within the means of as many people as possible. Electricity is being used increasingly for industrial power, for traction, and for public lighting; and all of these different uses of electricity are good for load factor and diversity factor.
Another problem which is arising in connection with electricity supply is that of the different frequencies in different parts of the country. That is a great tragedy, which has arisen from the chaotic way in which the electricity supply industry has grown up. The difference in frequencies involves all kinds of other difficulties. It means that it is difficult to link up stations, because their frequencies are different. It means that the consumer moving from one part of the country to another may find himself in difficulties. Above all, it means that the British manufacturer manufacturing electrical equipment and plant, instead of manufacturing substantially to one standard, has to manufacture to more standards, and that increases overhead costs and to some extent embarrasses the manufacturer in the supply of these things for the overseas market. We are doing something in that direction.
There is in hand the Central Scotland scheme, in which the frequency is being converted to 50 cycles, which is the standard. That is going to cost £3,194,250. There is the Central England scheme, costing £3,653,500, and the North-West of England scheme, costing £399,500, giving roughly £7,250,000 in all. The North-East Coast is under consideration. The House may be sure that the
Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board are pushing forward in all possible ways, and that they will receive every possible encouragement from His Majesty's Government.
This Motion, quite properly, refers prominently to the problem in the rural areas, and I am very glad that the late Minister referred to the difficulties which the Minister of Transport has in judging questions of amenity which come up in connection with rural supplies. The availability of electricity for the rural housewife, the farmer, and the rural labourer, involves questions of amenity which have to be balanced against other questions, and we have to see to it as far as we can that the development of electricity supply in the most economical way does not interfere, at any rate more than is necessary, with the amenities of the countryside of which we are all so proud. But the nation must live, and the people must have their electrical energy; and the Minister who sets his face against the economic aspects of the problem will not be doing justice to the electricity supply industry or to the nation itself.
The problem in the rural areas, again, is a problem of load factor. The demand for electricity in the rural areas is lower than in the industrial areas and in the towns; and the supply undertakings, being locally organised, have to consider the price which they can fix for electricity as justified by the load which their undertaking carries. The Post Office is an admirable institution in this way. I am sure I may praise it in some way without being denounced by the other side of the House. It obviously costs the Post Office much more to deliver a letter in a far distant rural area than in the County of London, but, nevertheless, they charge exactly the same price in the rural area as they do in the County of London. The reason is that the Post Office is nationally organized, and strikes an average of its costs. But the electricity undertaking, whether company or municipal, is organised locally, and must have regard to costs in the district in which it is working. If electricity supply were really organised on a national basis, it would be easier to quote lower prices in the rural areas and to average matters to a far greater extent than is done at the present time.
Therefore, the rural areas are to some extent the victims of the local and restricted organisation of the electricity supply industry.
The late Minister of Transport referred to the scheme which he inaugurated at Bedford, with the assistance of the Development Commissioners, who have been very helpful, and of the Electricity Commissioners. Information about that scheme has already been given to the House. I am very anxious to increase the number of experiments in connection with rural supply, because I take the view that the rural inhabitants—the farmer, the agricultural labourer, and so on—are very practical people, and, before they are convinced that electricity will do what the industry says it will do, they much prefer to sec it with their own eyes and be sure about it. Therefore, the more we can do to demonstrate these things in a practical way, the better it will be. We have pushed on the Bedford scheme as quickly as possible, and I am anxious to inaugurate a few other experimental schemes, so that everybody may be within a reasonable distance of some place where rural electrification can be seen at first hand. An effort must be made in these rural areas to get the best load factor and diversity factor, and we must do all that we can to solve the problems of wayleaves and overhead lines. I hope very much that landowners will co-operate with the Electricity Commissioners and the undertakers in granting wayleave facilities without too much difficulty and at a reasonable charge, in the interests of electrical development in the rural areas.
The Motion refers to the relationship between electricity supply and the coal-mining industry. I think it is a great misfortune that these two industries have not grown up hand in hand. It is a curious thing that in some towns within half a mile of a coalfield the electrical generating station has no relation to the coalfield itself, and the coal actually has to be brought to the generating station. That is a pity, and probably it would not have happened if the coal industry and the electricity supply industry had been run together on a national, collectivist basis. But we ought not to press the argument too far. Some people have assumed that you can generate all electricity at the pit-head and transmit it
anywhere you like, but there are certain problems in connection with costs of transmition cables, losses in transmition, and so on, which make a considerable difference to the economic aspect of that proposition, and, therefore, this somewhat high-falutin' talk about generating all our electricity at the coal face and transmitting it to any distance had better be accepted with some little reserve until the actual financial and economic facts are looked into. Undoubtedly, it is desirable that there should be a reasonable relationship betwen the two industries, and I am informed that, at the invitation of the Central Electricity Board, at the beginning of this year the Mining Association set up a Committee to investigate closely, with a Committee of the Central Electricity Board, the best means for co-operation between the mining industry and the Central Electricity Board. That joint Committee is fully exploring every aspect of the situation. I think that that is a useful step in the right direction and should be mutually advantageous.
6.0 p.m.
Another factor is that of water power. Reference has been made to the Scottish scheme, but, as the House knows, the Government have had under consideration by a Committee for some years the possibility of generating electricity from the Severn, and careful inquiries and scientific investigations are still proceeding in that matter. When the time comes, we may have to consider whether the effect on the coal industry of the use of water power is not such that we have to strike a balance between the two national economic factors, but, undoubtedly, water power is one of the possibilities of the situation, and ought to be carefully examined. Again I say that all these things are exceedingly difficult in the absence of national responsibility. Without national ownership it is difficult to get the necessary co-ordination, either of coal and power or of one undertaking and another in a district. The industry has already made great progress in that direction, and I hope it will continue to do so. It is one of the most progressive industries in the country. I want the electricity supply industry to adopt the policy of push and go, and to reject the policy of high prices, quick profits and a quiet
life. No one either in industry or in public administration, whether as a Minister or as a civil servant, is entitled to a quiet life. None of us ought to have a quiet life. The nation is calling aloud for constructive effort for the national good, and we must all be constantly active and energetic in the desire to push things on. Particularly is that true in the electricity supply industry. We have issued a circular to the industry making certain suggestions and there are signs that it is evoking a response. It was making a response before, but there is need for a big push on the sales side of the electricity supply industry. It must have adequate publicity, there must be practical demonstration of what electricity will do, and there must be a feeling in the local undertaking that it really does not matter whether they generate their own supply or take it from the grid, as long as the price is right. The primary purpose of a distributive undertaking is not to bother its head too much about generating unless it is a selected station. The local engineer, if he is generating, must be efficient for the purpose. We have, in a sense, to develop a new type of local electrical engineer who must be much more of a salesman and a shop-keeper than an electrical engineer or a technician on the generating side. Some undertakings tell their manager to go ahead with generating and employ a sales engineer for selling the products.
I believe a determined effort to develop the sales side of the industry is of very great importance indeed. The consumer must be looked after and cultivated, and made to feel that he can go to them with his troubles and they are anxious to put them right, and we must have rapid development in order that the capital may be used in the most effective way. We believe that if this is done there will be repercussions upon industrial efficiency, and upon the manufacturing industry and the national good. I think that more and more in the early future we shall all have to consider whether this industry can be permanently run on the basis of locality, or whether the nation has to assume responsibility for this vital national need. I believe we shall have to face the question whether this great, essential and fundamental service can be safely left in private hands or whether it should
be taken into the hands of the community and used definitely for the national good. The House will know where my principles are. I have considerable admiration for much that private capital has done in the field of electrical supply, but surely this is one of the industries which are so vitally necessary to industry, to the home and to the whole well-being of the nation that it may be desirable that it should be run as a public service, certainly with proper business management and commercial instinct—the House is familiar with my policy on that line—but certainly in the end, in my view, accountable to the nation because of its great vital importance to the progress of the nation itself. This Debate has been exceedingly useful. It has brought out some important. facts in connection with the development of this great industry, and I am sure it will be helpful to this or any other Government which has to consider its policy in the future with regard to electrical supply.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Mover of the Motion on the really admirable address that he has given us on a very difficult subject, the supply of electricity. I agree with practically everything he said, but there are one or two points I should like to bring out. It does not appear to me that the House sufficiently realises the very wonderful work which has been carried out in a remarkably short time by the Central Electricity Board. Those who, like myself, have very keenly watched the way in which they have carried out their by no means easy duties can appreciate better, perhaps, than the general public can the excellent way in which they have performed their duties. It is only right that the late Minister of Transport should receive that praise to which he is entitled for the excellent selection he made of the members of that Board. Many of the difficulties the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) mentioned will be overcome once the Central Electricity Board has completed its schemes and the object for which it was started can be definitely achieved. The cost of generation, including the capital expenditure, will then be very greatly reduced. That is what we have to bring about, and I am confident that the anticipations of the Electricity Commissioners, based on
their detailed knowledge of the conditions of production, will be realised, and that at no distant date, when the grid really comes into operation, the current will be able to be sold to the distributors so that they in their time can hand it on to industry at prices varying from 5d. to 6d. or thereabouts, which is a low price under normal conditions.
As far as railways are concerned, I do not quite agree with the late Minister that they should be exempt from blame. The Southern Railway have done exceedingly well by the public, and also by their shareholders. In those circumstances why do we not see the electrification of Liverpool Street, Kings Cross, and that of the local services in many of our large cities where the people to-day are certainly not being carried in the satisfactory manner that they have a right to expect? As regards main line electrification, there is a great deal more in it if only given sections are electrified, than some people think, and the decision of the Southern Railway to electrify their main line to Brighton and Worthing is a sufficient proof that they, at least, are convinced that electrification is going to be sound business. There are many other sections of main lines where investigations have been made, and it can be definitely shown that electrification will he of very great utility and will show a very reasonable return on the capital involved. Incidentally, that electrification will be very much simplified by the existence of the grid, which will be able to supply them with power at an even lower rate than I referred to just now. I believe, from investigations I have made, under ordinary working conditions, of sections of main line railway where the traffic is such as to justify electrification, that these will be able to purchase their current in bulk from the Central Electricity Board at prices well below 4d., which will be of very material advantage to them. The electrification of certain sections of railway will not only be of advantage to the railways themselves, but will be of very material assistance to the grid, and will enable the Central Electricity Board to reduce their costs, because they will have a very much better utilisation of the grid than would otherwise be possible.
As that grid will be traversing rural areas it will enable those areas,
without any additional expenditure, on account of the transmission line itself or on special sub-stations which would otherwise have to be installed, to be supplied with energy and to get electricity at a very much lower rate than would otherwise be possible. The Minister, it seemed to me, rather indicated that rural areas would not be able to get cheap electricity because in their case there were few existing stations and the bulk industry had not been nationalised. I differ from him, because the grid will give them that cheap electricity which, without it, they would have been unable to secure.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Does my hon. Friend mean that the rural areas can be connected with the grid without transformers? That is not according to my information.

Sir P. DAWSON: I said the railways having supplies from the grid will necessitate sub-stations, and that will mean that a portion of those sub-stations can be utilised to supply rural requirements. The grid will do the very thing the Minister of Transport mentions. It will enable various rural areas to have a source of electricity of which to-day they are deprived and which, if it were installed to-day simply for their own requirements, could not produce electricity economically.
In connection with the general supply of electricity, there has been a difficulty in the past of supplying sparsely populated areas as the result of the fact that, more or less gradually, both municipal undertakings and private companies developed those portions where the largest number of consumers were to be found. To-day we find local authorities and private companies supplying at a very reasonable rate more or less densely populated areas, and going out and getting fringe orders where they think there are more or less remunerative areas which can be added to their source of supply. If that sort of thing is going to continue, we shall have all the remunerative parts supplied with electricity by authorised undertakers and all the unremunerative parts without any source of supply at all, and there will be no one who can be found to supply them at an economic price. Therefore, the larger the areas over which distribution takes place,
the better it is from the point of view of securing a cheap supply. Under these conditions, it should be stipulated that the less populated areas should be developed, and that an undertaking having an area comprising the rich with the less rich should be obliged to spend a certain amount of money on the development of the less populated areas. That, as a matter of fact, is being done to-day, and I think at no distant date we shall see this country with a series of distribution systems which will enable the desire of all of us to be fulfilled, namely, that the greater part of the population should have electricity available at their doors at a reasonable rate.
I do not think that desire is so difficult of fulfilment that we may not expect its realisation. There are to-day only 5 per cent. of the villages in the whole of Germany which are not connected up in One shape or another with an electricity supply. It means that overhead lines, and cheap overhead lines, are essential if we are going to supply rural demands. It also means that salesmanship should be practised by those responsible for electrical undertakings. There are a very large number of electrical undertakings in this country setting out in every form and shape to sell their electricity as a commodity and sending out commercial travellers in order to get the people to understand what benefits they would derive from the utilisation of electricity.
If I may throw out one hint to the Government, I would say that we find to-day as regards industrial electrification that it is those industries which are most affected by unemployment which are the least electrified. We find it in the coal industry, the steel industry and the cotton industry. In many cases a very good case can be made out for electrification, but under the present financial conditions those concerned are not able, even if they are willing, to find the capital expenditure necessary for such improvements. We have heard a lot about rationalisation of industry, which is something, I believe, which will have to be carried out, and it is very largely synonymous with the electrification of industry. If a case for the electrification of any given industry or any given coal mine or steel industry can be made out, I suggest that the Government might well guarantee the interest on such expenditure provided they were satisfied
that the undertaking would become self-supporting and that the electrification would pay for itself within a reasonable time.
Something might be done in many cases for the electrification of rural areas. There are farms where the farmers would find it practically impossible to spend a considerable amount of money in the electrical apparatus which they would require and which they could use with great benefit to themselves, but if assistance could be given to them in purchasing that apparatus, I think that electrification in rural areas would spread a great deal faster than it is doing to-day. I quite agree that our electrical industry, and I especially refer now to the supply industry, has progressed far more satisfactorily than some of us had reason to hope eight or nine years ago. I should like to see it progress still more rapidly, because although our progress is satisfactory from one point of view, we have not yet made up the leeway that we have to make up in order to be even with the degree of electrification that has taken place in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden and the United States. It is exactly those countries where the electrification of industry has taken place to the largest extent which are the countries we find it most difficult to compete against in the export markets of the world.
As far as I am concerned, I support the Motion, subject to it being perfectly clearly understood that it is not a question of the nationalisation of the electrical industry or the electricity supply industry, although it might be necessary, as it was found necessary by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport in the late Government, in connection with the creation of the Central Electricity Board under the Electricity Act, 1926, in certain circumstances, to use a certain amount of compulsion in order to bring about co-ordination and co-operation. If we get that result, I think that it will not be very long before this country will lead other countries in the way of electrification. We must and ought to realise that we have every right to be very proud indeed of the 1926 Electricity Act. I have discussed that Act with representatives of the supply industries, both publicly - owned and privately-owned, in many parts of Europe. I have discussed it in Germany, in
Czechoslovakia, in Italy, in France and in Switzerland. I have come to the conclusion that our Electricity Act will result in our having a better and a more complete system of interconnection and transmission than that which exists in any other country to-day. I hope when that Act has really brought about the completion of the grid we shall be able to congratulate ourselves upon the fact that the late Government brought in one of the most useful and most constructive Acts in connection with the rehabilitation of industry that has ever been brought in by any Government.

Mr. EDE: I should like, in the first place, to express the great feeling of gratification we have on this side of the House at the very robust speech of the Minister of Transport on this particular question. We welcome especially the closing stages of his remarks, because we feel that they show a complete realisation of the difficulties which have to be faced, and of the only way in which they can be faced if this great national interest is to be properly safeguarded. I desire to address the House for a few minutes as one who has given 21 years of a not very long life to municipal electricity. In the year 1908 I was appointed to the Electricity Committee of the Epsom Urban District Council, and I served on that committee and acted as its chairman for a good many years. For the last two years I have been a member of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, on which I have the honour to represent the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertford, Kent and Surrey. That particular district represents a very important area of this country as far as electricity is concerned. If there is to be any real dealing with the great problem of industry in London and the neigh-bourhood that problem can only be dealt with satisfactorily if that large area which I particularly represent on the Joint Electricity Authority is supplied with an adequate amount of cheap electrical power. We are faced, however, with an extraordinary series of complications which make us very glad indeed to hear the way in which the Minister of Transport to-day has envisaged this problem in its widest aspects.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest (Colonel
Ashley) alluded to the way in which electricity areas were originally mapped out, taking practically the boundaries of the local sanitary authorities, and thereby creating a series of small stations and uncorrelated systems which have come down to us to-day as one of the earliest and most elementary problems which we have to face. In the area of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority we have 166 local authorities, each either undertakers themselves or possessing purchase rights in undertakings owned by companies. Forty-four local authorities are undertakers, and the remaining area is covered by 47 different companies. Outside the County of London itself we have 34 different companies, and there are 141 separate rights of purchase exercisable by local authorities at some time or other against those various local companies. The consequence is that any national system, such as my hon. Friend suggested ought to be built up, is very difficult to achieve, because of the fact that you have, say, this particular parish with a purchase right maturing in 1933, the adjoining parish with its purchase right maturing in 1935, and then perhaps the next parish with its purchase right not maturing until 1957, or some such date. This makes the people now in charge of the sanitary arrangements of the district feel that they have very little interest in the ultimate reversion of those purchase rights.
The matter is still further complicated by the fact that in this area just round London we have had during the past few years a very large re-grouping of the local government areas. If you take the parish in which I live and the constituency which I had the honour formerly to represent in this House—Mitcham—when an order was obtained by the County of London Electricity Authority to supply that particular area with electricity, it was part of the old Croydon rural district. The Croydon rural district was broken up in 1915, and in the processes of the breaking up the different parishes were distributed under new urban sanitary authorities which were created by the Order. Every possible form of local service appears to have been considered except electricity. And it is very doubtful in the minds of those who have to advise the locality whether
the purchase rights of the local sanitary authority did not vanish owing to the fact that no provision was made for them in the Order that constituted the new urban districts which were carved out of the rural district. Under the Local Government Act, with the county councils charged with a decennial review of the whole of their sanitary districts, that kind of complication is going to increase, and the difficulties which arise from time to time in exercising these purchase rights will be very considerably increased. The Minister gave us no indication in the course of his speech, beyond -the very gratifying sentence with which it closed, that that particular form of problem had been engaging his attention. After all, it is not so very long since I used to sit behind him at the Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority cheering his very sound municipal ideas with regard to this particular problem, and other problems. We feel confident that in the working out of his scheme for the more effective national control of the industry and its ultimate nationalisation, he will not lose sight of this immediate problem.
During the last two years it has been my lot as a member of that Joint Electricity Authority to receive many deputations from the local authorities in that area, and we have found, as an authority, that they are very seriously concerned at the financial operations which are taking place in electricity undertakings in those districts which are not served by local authority undertakers. We have had deputations come to us from the most respectable places. We had a deputation from Surbiton, and if one could think of a more Tory place than Surbiton I think it ought to be stated to the House. The Surbiton local authority came to us and said, "We petitioned against our undertakers, who are Callenders. After the inquiry was held we secured a reduction, and now Callenders say they will not carry out any extension at all within the boundary of our urban district unless we agree to the price being restored." And, said these people, one of whom I believe was the ruling councillor of the local Primrose League: "These people are not out for the public interest. These people are out for profit, and because they cannot get profit, the development of our
particular district is to be held up." A few days later we had a deputation with similar complaints from the borough of Richmond, and perhaps Richmond is the only place that could have been suggested in exchange for Surbiton as being the most Tory place in the country. They took up exactly the same line.
At the present time, within the same county, we have the gravest possible difficulty with regard to the urban district of Dorking, where a situation has arisen so complicated in its nature that I believe the best legal minds in the country have devoted a good many hours, at the expense of their clients, to considering how the problem can be unravelled. Behind all this feeling in the district there is a, very great fear of what is called American money in the Greater London and Counties Trust, which is very largely financed by American money, which is controlled partly by the hon. Member who has just addressed the House and partly by Ministers in the late Government, who have taken up this work as a sort of spare time employment until they may next be called upon to sit on this side of the House. There is a feeling that the development of this part of the country, unless something is done to ensure that this company's undertakings are bought out and placed under public control, will be used to enrich American investors who are gaining control of these companies and, therefore, will be able to control the rate at, which the district is to be developed.
We feel very strongly in that area that in no circumstances can municipal finance be so strongly defended as in the way that it has dealt with the electricity problem. Throughout the country, £153,000,000 has at one time or other been sunk in electricity capital by municipal enterprise and of that amount only £85,500,000 is outstanding at the present time. Inasmuch as a municipal authority is only allowed to make 1½ per cent. profit on the outstanding capital, the figures which I have quoted show the very substantial gain which is given to the consumers every year as the capital is diminished and the amount chargeable to capital account is reduced. When we come to the companies, they have authority to spend £85,750,000, and I understand that at the present time about
£75,750,000 has been raised, which capital is either bearing interest or paying dividends. These figures are later than the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock). That represents an additional payment on the part of these particular areas which are under company control of between three million and four million pounds a year more than they would be paying if they were financed on the municipal basis.
A very grave position has arisen in some areas through the electrical companies forming subsidiary companies, to whom they supply electricity in bulk at a very low rate and then recoup themselves partly by retaining the price against the domestic and ordinary consumer at a very high figure. One of the worst examples of that is the case of the Lower Thames Land Development and Power Company at Barking, which has acquired 308 acres of land in the neighbourhood of the Barking Station of the County of London Electricity Company. They raised at one time a mortgage of £80,000, which has since been paid off. The County of London Company held originally 5,700 shares in that company, and in October of this year they were allotted a further 14,900 shares. The problem which arises in such an area has already arisen on the Tyneside. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin), in his eulogies of the electrical organisation on Tyneside, was going to deal with this particular problem.
On the Tyneside there is very serious complaint that subsidiary companies of the particular company which he quoted can get electrical power at a cheaper rate than the people engaged in the same industries who do not happen to be subsidiary companies. I travelled to South Shields, the other day, with a director of a company which does not happen to be one of the subsidiary companies, and he poured into my ears a very loud and long lamentation over the inequalities of electrical organisation in that area. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) has reminded me of a position of a company in his constituency, the Kent Power Company which in the parish of Swanscombe is charging 6.4d. per unit. for domestic supply and at the same time is supplying within the same parish a very large amount, I think it is 60,000,000 units of power, to other
people at a very much lower rate. I understand that the hon. Member's constituents are making very serious complaint about the matter. I can only hope that when it comes to an inquiry the Minister of Transport will see that this particular form of favouritism is not allowed to continue as between a parent company and its subsidiary companies to the detriment of the general consumers in the district.
The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) referred to the electrification of the railways. The Minister of Transport was in my constituency the other day, and he knows well that he was advised that if he desired to get from South Shields to Newcastle by the quickest available route he should avoid the railways. Whether he went himself or whether we conveyed him, he was advised that the quickest way was to go by motor car. In that district we feel that the time is ripe when the electrification of the suburban service from Newcastle which, on the north bank of the Tyne, shows some of the earliest work of electrification in the history of railway electrification, should be carried through and completed, and that the branches from South Shields to Sunderland and Newcastle deserve very early attention. That electrification would prove as remunerative to the London and North Eastern Railway Company as the electrification of the suburban routes has proved to the Southern Railway Company. We hope that great pressure will he put by the Minister upon the railway company to secure the electrification of those suburban services.
I should like to express the gratification which we feel on this side of the House for the very clear and illuminating statement that was made by the Minister of Transport. We can only hope that he will occupy that position for a sufficient number of decades as the Minister of Transport of our party, to ensure that not merely will the first step be carried through—that will be carried through in the history of this Parliament—but that the development of our electricity system will be so firmly built into the life of this country that electrical energy will take its proper place, nationally controlled, nationally owned and helping to deal with the great social problems that confront us.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: The Motion is one that can readily be accepted by hon. Members in all quarters of the House, of whatever political complexion they may be. It is not so much the exact wording of the Motion, but the intention of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite which lies behind the Motion, upon which I should be glad to have some light and guidance. Fortunately, we are not called upon to vote upon the intentions of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, because there does not seem likelihood of the matter going to a Division. The Motion expresses a good intention in language to which none of us can take exception. I should like to deal with one of the points that was made by the Seconder of the Motion, in a well-reasoned and admirable speech. As I understood it, the burden of his speech was to the effect that the municipalised systems were of greater benefit to the country than privately-owned systems, and that the extension of the spirit of municipal enterprise, even towards State ownership, would be of greater benefit still. He went on to support his argument by illustration, and he was supported by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He dealt with the amount of capital and the unpaid debt in the municipal services compared with the amount of outstanding capital and unpaid debt in the privately-owned undertakings. It is immaterial whether I have his figures quite accurately or not. The hon. Member for South Shields gave the relative figures, I think, as £77,000,000 and £85,000,000.

Mr. EDE: My figures were a year later than the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Stourbridge.

Mr. BALFOUR: I understood him to say that in connection with the municipal services the debt of £150,000,000 or £160,000,000 had been reduced to £85,000,000 It must be remembered that the municipal services cover two-thirds of the output of the country, while the privately-owned services cover one-third of the output. He made the point that the debt on the municipally-owned services is very little more than that of the company-owned services. It is difficult to expose the fallacy of this kind of argument in dealing with a highly complicated subject of this character. If the hon.
Member will reflect he will realise that the companies as a whole, if you take them territorially, are supplying a territory—I am making a guess—of five to one or even ten to one compared with the area served by the local authorities. Therefore, considerable modification has to be allowed if we are to make a com- parative basis of consideration in regard to finance having regard to the area served by the municipalities compared with the area served by the companies. Take the City of Edinburgh and the surrounding area as an illustration. If you go across the Forth you get an area of, say, 600 square miles which is served by a company. The total population of that 600 square miles area is, say, 250,000, while in the City of Edinburgh the population may be—I do not know the exact figure-300,000 or 400,000. Is there any comparison in the amount of capital which must be put down in order to serve an area 600 miles square, with such a population, compared with the capital necessary to serve a highly remunerative, compact and densely populated area such as the City of Edinburgh?
While I never like to obtrude in these Debates and have always tried to remain silent, it is not out of place that one like myself, who is liable to be shot at by hon. Members opposite, should take part, because I am associated with companies which turn out one-sixth of the whole service output of this country and between one-third and one-fourth of the whole output that was turned out when the 1919 Act went through. An hon. Member opposite referred to his experience of 21 years with an electricity committee of a municipal corporation. My electricity experience goes back for 35 years, and while one dislikes to obtrude any personal reference it may lie helpful to the House to know that 35 years ago I was the municipal engineer to a municipal corporation, early days in the development of electricity, and I am now supplying north, south, cast and west, a far greater range and diversity of supply than is controlled by any one in- dividual in the country. I may say this with some considerable pride, that the organisations with which I am associated and closely associated personally have been built up by an enthusiasm and a desire to succeed rather than from what may be called any money grabbing pro-
pensities. I say frankly that I know no means by which I can shelter myself from an attack which says that you are charging 8d. per unit in certain places. No doubt there are many cases where 8d. is being charged where the supply should be given at less than 5d. per unit.

Mr. BEN SMITH (Treasurer of the Household): That is, that the price charged should not be charged.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am not suggesting that there may not be cases where the prices charged should not be charged, but what I am trying to do is to kill if I can the idea that there is no necessary relation between the unit price and what is an unduly high price. Let me give an illustration. We were pressed to put up a station in the Highlands of Scotland. I would much rather have not done so, but it was decided to put the station up and the charge was 8d. per unit. They grumbled. It certainly does not pay the company. During the summer they charge their lodgers for electricity and make a profit on the 8d. per unit, and in many cases in the winter they switch off their electricity and burn candles. What I am endeavouring to do is to bring this down to some sense of proportion. My right hon. and gallant Friend the ex-Minister of Transport turned to me and said that I should no doubt answer for private enterprises. My right hon. and gallant Friend is wrong. I have no right to stand here and defend private enterprise or municipal enterprise. This is a matter which affects the whole people of this country, and I can only approach the problem from that point of view. I am as much charged with the duty, if there is an attack on the electricity supply of the country and an attack on municipal authorities, of defending municipal authorities in the discharge of their duties as I am private enterprises.
The one main thing I am concerned with is the issue brought before the House by this Motion. It is not the Motion itself, but what hon. and right hon. Members opposite intend by the Motion. They intend to give expression to it by some form of nationalisation; I do not think I exaggerate their views and I am not unfairly representing their views. I respect them for expressing them from the platform. My platform is the very
opposite. We both consider that from our respective platforms we are doing the best thing for the public. However widely we differ we at least think that we are discharging a public duty. A reference was made by the Minister of Transport to the Post Office service in rural areas in delivering letters at a penny just as is done in the towns.
May I take another illustration from the Post Office, a simple one, but one which is much more comparable to the case of the provision of electricity. If the Minister of Transport will reflect he will admit that there are many thousands and tens of thousands of people in this country who are supplied with electricity for 8d., 7d., 6d. and 5d. per unit where the total bill per annum is much less than the fixed charge extracted by the Post Office for the telephone. I think you have to pay £1 5s. per quarter, and you have to pay this down in advance, and you have to pay for every use you make of the telephone. That is the way to illustrate the point. You have to pay £1 5s. per quarter for an instrument which costs a few shillings and pay for the service you get. We often get £4 10s. or £5 as a, total revenue, when the price of electricity is 8d. or 10d. per unit. Is it fair to accuse an industry, whether municipal or private, of charging undue high rates simply because the price sounds high without any regard to the total amount which the consumer pays. I have occupied more time than I intended to occupy and I apologise because I know there are many other hon. Members who desire to speak.

Major GWILYM LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin), not only on his speech, but upon having brought this Motion before the House, dealing as it does with a problem which is important at any time but is much more important to-day than ever before. In the past we owed a great deal of our growth in prosperity to the use made of steam. It made us the manufacturing country for the rest of the world, and there is no doubt that electricity is rapidly taking the place of steam. What I fear is that this country is not making such rapid strides in its utilisation of electricity as a motive power as it did in the case of steam in the last century.
We cannot afford to neglect the development of electricity, and while the Minister of Transport to-day made a statement which in some respects was satisfactory, showing that we have developed in the last few years at a very good rate indeed, the thing which disturbs one is the comparison of the utilisation of electricity in this country and in those countries which happen to be our serious rivals as manufacturing countries.
We are not using electricity to anything like our full capacity. I shall not be far wrong if I say that about 20 per cent. of our population only are electricity users at the present time, and industry is certainly not using it as much as it should. Everybody expresses the hope that we shall have a cheap and abundant supply of electricity as rapidly as possible. I remember some years ago in this House, in a similar discussion, the hope being expressed that the country would have large stations which would enable electricity to be generated at a much more economic rate and therefore sold at a much cheaper rate to the consumer. There was a good deal of scoffing at the time at the idea of super-stations which would cure the high price of electricity, yet to-day the Minister of Transport gave us figures which show that in the last six or seven years the fuel cost has dropped from 3.4 lbs. per unit to 2.16 lbs. per unit, a remarkable drop, due entirely to the putting up of more economic and larger stations while the price to the consumer has dropped from 2.48d. to 1.55d., another remarkable drop.
There are difficulties in the way of erecting these large stations. An hon. Member opposite has referred to local prejudice. I have myself come across this local prejudice. I remember one instance, if I may give it, in which one station was so over-burdened with load at the time of the peak that it was a question whether it could carry it at all, and it had to utilise all its spare plant to get through that particular period. Although they were offered a bulk supply at a much lower rate, as it would have turned out, the prejudice against having to scrap themselves as a unit was so strong that they carried on until the Christmas eve of one year, when the load got so great that it blew the generator through the roof. They then came to a decision and
scrapped the station, taking the bulk load where it was obtainable. I do not suggest that that is the best way of getting over such a difficulty, but it is extraordinary what amazing prejudice exists. Although in many cases it can be shown that it is directly to the advantage of the place to take the bulk supply at a lower price, they feel that their authority is being taken away, that they are not such big people as they were before.
7.0 p.m.
With regard to the question of a cheap and abundant supply of electricity to industry, surely what is wanted is to enable as much horse-power as possible to be given to the assistance of workers in industry in order that the costs of production might be brought to as low a level as possible. In regard to domestic use, which is another important way of using electricity, I believe that education is a very important factor indeed. There is an enormous amount of ignorance to-day regarding the use of electricity. Take the case of an electric kettle. If it is allowed to boil over the elements are destroyed and electricity is considered unsuitable. It is all a question of education, and in time this country will come to look upon electricity in the same way as it looks upon gas to-day. Why is it that we really cannot develop electricity at least as much as some of these other countries? We are ideally situated for it. One of the greatest costs of electricity to-day is that of transmission. In what other country in the world is that cost as small as it is here? We hear a lot about water, and, while I am in favour of utilising the water resources of this country, do not let us run away with the idea that water is the cheapest material. If this country has not beer blessed with great water power, we have something equally as good in our great coal resources, if we utilised that, we should find that this country was the most ideally situated in the world for a cheap and abundant supply. I was amazed this last summer, travelling through Italy, at the enormous distances electricity is conveyed there, and what surprised me still more was the terrific work in the mountains in putting up generating stations. If other countries can do it, we ought to be able to do it.
We heard this afternoon about the rural areas. There, we are undoubtedly very
far behind other countries. Dwellers in the rural districts are not encouraged to take supplies or even to expect to get them. I remember once working on a transmission line in a rural district, and I had to ask the local farmers for leave to put the line. They all asked whether, if they had the line, they would be able to get a cheap supply, and I had to say, "No, unless there is a sub-station in the district." There is no very great encouragement at present to the rural people to expect that they can get shortly a cheap supply of electricity.
We hear about the ugliness of these poles along the countryside. I do not agree. We allow houses to go up that certainly cannot be beaten for ugliness, and I never heard of anybody in the Lake District or anywhere else complaining about the look of them. If this country is going to maintain, and, indeed, improve its position in the world, then, frankly, I do not believe that we can afford to stand on that kind of thing. We must do our best, of course, not to make things too hideous, but I did not hear people complaining of it in Switzerland where you have poles and even tramcars among some of the most beautiful mountains in the world. They have come to the conclusion that the first thing for them is to improve the conditions of their people and to give them every facility for manufacture and for agricultural purposes. I believe that is the primary thing for us to consider.
The rural industries in this country have not died out, but they are dying out very rapidly, and I regard that as a national disaster, because you are driving people from the country into the town, and that is a bad thing for this country or for any country. It is not so in other countries. They tell us that these industries have been killed by mass production. The home of mass production is the United States of America. A man who has perhaps had more than other people to do with it told me a remarkable thing about two years ago. He told me that farmers outside the city where he manufactured were encouraged by him to put in lathes and machinery so that in the winter months when conditions were bad and marketing difficult they could make parts of the articles which he manufactured and send them in, and he paid them for them. If that can be
done within a short distance of the greatest mass production factory in the world at a profit, surely we in this country can revive some of our industries and enable our people to earn a better livelihood.
A great deal has been done in the last few years, as I realise, and I think the Minister made a very lucid statement this afternoon on the position, but an enormous amount remains to be done, and what better time for doing it can there be than to-day? Are we, for instance, using our resources in the best possible way? I heard the Minister say this afternoon that the Severn scheme was being investigated. Five years ago I got exactly the same reply. That is not very encouraging. Five years is a long time, and I should like to know how far that investigation has gone, and whether it has been looked at as a practical possibility in the fairly near future.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: All I can say is that the inquiry has gone so far that it is established that it is worth while for a further stage of the inquiry to take place. That is not to say that we are satisfied that it is an economic proposition, but that it is worth thinking about. We have to visualise what will happen in the Severn over 100 years, and that is not a five minutes' job. We must, before we come to a conclusion, know exactly what faces us.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman had taken the time. There certainly is an advance. If you have reached the conclusion that it is worth while going a step further that is a definite advance, and I hope you will be able to come to a decision in favour of something being done. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen complained that West Wales had no part of the grid running through it. I will make a suggestion to the Minister. We certainly have cause for complaint in West Wales if the grid stops at Llanelly, but, if it is found that the Severn scheme is one that can be carried further, there is in my own constituency what I believe would be an ideal place for a similar scheme, and, provided that can be looked into, we would not complain of the grid not going further than Llanelly if we could send current back from the West to the East.
I believe that it is one of the few practical tidal schemes in this country, because you have arms of the sea which can be worked one against another in times of slack tide. On the borders of that arm of the sea there lives a community that owes its practical destruction to Government action. There is no other industry, and, if some investigation could lee made into my suggestion, it would be not only an advantage to a community, practically destroyed through no fault of its own, but an advantage to the great industrial community that lies to the East. I do hope the Government will speed up the development of these electrical matters. What we want to-day more than anything is work, and, if it is work which will be of benefit to the people and industry of this country, it is first-class. I hope the Minister can see his way to bring forward some work which can be done at this time when distress is so acute and will not only keep our people employed but put the country in a better position to compete in the markets of the world.

Mr. FREEMAN: I am very glad to take this opportunity to support my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) in his Motion. His constituency joins mine, and I am glad to see that his recommendations are supported by the Opposition, and by the Liberal party as well as by the Government. It looks, therefore, as though no Division will be taken. From one point of view one regrets that, because, if there were a Division there would be more chance of definite action, which naturally the mover would prefer. Having obtained the unanimous support of all parties, however, one hopes that he will get that definite action. There is no doubt, as has been explained in some detail, that electricity has now become essential to our national life. It is one of the obvious requirements, and is being used in all sorts of ways for heat, power, and domestic uses. We ought to encourage it to the greatest possible extent, and, whether that is so will be mainly determined by cost, which is the matter before the country at the present time. It seems to me that it can only be developed if its use is extended and exploited to a far greater extent. Its limited use in this country has been re-
ferred to, and we can only get it cheaper if it is made available, not only for industry and business, but also in our rural areas. We may hope that it will be developed and be placed on a basis, as suggested by the Minister of Transport, like that of the Post Office Service, so anybody can get supplies of electricity at the lowest cost.
One would certainly recommend the scheme which has been suggested by the previous speaker, that of the Severn Bar- rage and the harnessing of the Severn itself, and one is glad to know that the Minister of Transport is investigating this important matter which has been before the country so long. We may hope his inquiries will before long reach a stage of fruition at which they will find practical expression. Certainly, we are behind other countries in this respect, and I am sorry that we did not get some figures from the Minister as to cost and use com- pared with other countries. That information would be particularly valuable. It is probable that, compared with other countries, we are considerably behind hand. Something has been said about the value of municipal supplies compared with private supplies. Of course there are many anomalies to be found in that direction. That is one of the reasons why I gladly support the Resolution. Let me give an illustration by stating what I have to tolerate. Whereas in Cardiff the cost of electricity is some 4d. to 5d. a unit, in Penarth two or three miles away we have to pay 8d. to 9d. The salaries are not double in one place what they are in the other, so that the explanation is not to be found in that way.
It is for reasons such as these that some of us are of opinion that a service like that of electricity should be placed on a national basis. Those who have to put up with residence a long distance from the towns should not also be called upon to pay an extra price for electricity. With regard to rural areas generally, one cannot help feeling that much of the drudgery and dullness and misery which people are called upon to suffer far from the towns would be abolished if proper electricity supplies were brought to farm and field and village. I hope that as a result of this subject having been brought forward some definite action will be taken at the earliest possible moment to develop our electricity supply.

Sir D. NEWTON: I desire to congratulate the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion for giving the House an opportunity of discussing such an interesting subject. It has been my privilege to be a Member of the House for several years, but I cannot remember any occasion when we have had a Debate on the question of electricity, although there have been Debates, of course, when the various Electricity Supply Acts have been passing through the House. I suggest to the Minister that it would be valuable to the House if he could arrange that at least one day each year is allocated to a discussion of this important question. It has been stated in the Debate that the capital invested in the transmission and distribution of electric current has risen from £8,000,000 in 1922–23 to 16,060,000 in 1927–28, and it is forecast that within the next five years a figure of £100,000,000 will be reached. Surely such figures afford justification for a Debate on the question of electricity supply?
I feel that the Electricity Commissioners have a difficult task to perform. Owing to the varied nature of their duties they cannot please everyone, hut I think that they have discharged their difficult duties, on the whole, with knowledge, ability and understanding. The weight of this Debate has been on the side of rural electrification. If we study history we find that no country, however great, has retained its power and place, in the world when it has neglected the interests of its rural community. Therefore every possible step should be taken to see that the drift from the rural areas to the urban centres is as far as possible stopped. The urge of the city becomes less potent as the advantages of the city are made available to the dweller in the country.
Let me say a few words as to the great value of electricity in rural areas. Take the case of a farmer. A supply of electricity well might enable a farmer to alter his system of husbandry. The fact that electricity was available might enable him to start a dairy. He would have power to pump water and to prepare food, machinery to milk his cows and to cool his milk. Then, in regard to the question of poultry, electricity can be advantageously employed in incubators and brooders. It is said that the perfect rest and contentment enjoyed by the
chicks in the electric brooders gives them more pep for the activities of their life later on. While on the subject of the encouragement of the poultry industry, I would mention that no less than 490,000 cwts. of poultry were imported into this country last year. Surely there is scope for the use of electric incubators and brooders in order to supply some of that large demand from, home sources?
Then take fruit and vegetable growing. We find electricity used for heating purposes in Sweden and other countries. In the home also electricity plays a great part. It is now possible, when electricity is available, to use electric cooking apparatus and to set a time switch for an appointed hour. On the farm this means that if dinner is prepared and placed in the oven the whole family can go out for fruit or potato picking or for some other agricultural purpose, and can come back with the certainty that a hot dinner is properly cooked and available for them at the appointed time. I have enumerated some of the advantages to be derived from electricity. I will now call attention to some of the causes which, in my judgment, are retarding the development of electricity in the rural areas. On page 7 of the Report of the Electricity Commissioners, it is stated:
Nature and conditions of supply and other governing factors in this country are essentially different from those obtaining in other countries.
If they are essentially different I think the differences are in favour of this country owing to the population density in rural areas being greater than those in other countries. The slow development of electricity supply in the rural districts of this country is not due to the cause alleged. Let me instance the question of Special Orders. We all deplore the figures that we have seen to-day with regard to unemployment. There are over 1,000,000 men and over 250,000 women unemployed on the registers. In answer to a question which I addressed to the Minister of Transport, he stated the other day that there were some 70 Special Orders dealing with electricity supply now under consideration, and that the average time taken to carry through a Special Order was from 12 to 15 months. Surely the Minister can take some steps to expedite the passage of these Orders,
and so give employment to some of the great number of people who are out of work? Here are men wanting work on the one side and people wanting electricity on the other. Surely it is possible to reconcile the two needs?
Next in regard to the question of way-leaves. Rural electrification is a national question, and it is not right and proper that any individual or local authority or society should stand in the way of the granting of wayleaves for the supply of electricity. I hope that steps will be taken to make it possible for an officer of the Electricity Commissioners to give a prompt decision in regard to wayleaves. At the present moment an inquiry is held in regard to a wayleave, and often a decision is not given until three or four months afterwards. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs for the industry.
I hope, too, that the Commissioners will take an early opportunity of reconsidering some of the regulations which they have issued. The factors of safety in the regulations of this country are very much in excess of those considered necessary in other countries. In England, for instance, the factor of safety is 2½ in the case of steel towers and ironwork, and 3½ for wood. In America the factor of safety is 1½ as compared with the 2½ in England, and that factor is found adequate to meet conditions in America. This is a direction in which the Commissioners might reconsider their regulations. Then with regard to the regulations themselves. The Electricity Commissioners' regulations are comprised in one leaflet such as I hold in my hand. In America, in California, the regulations are in a book which makes suggestions and gives valuable advice as to the cheapest and most effective method of construction of various lines to give adequate service and secure greater safety to persons engaged upon them. I feel that there must be something missing in our methods when America, which is the most progressive electrified country in the world, finds it desirable to issue a book of that kind in order to assist the electrical industry, and I hope that we will follow suit.
Then there is the need of providing up-to-date machinery to enable sites to be obtained for transformers. I know one or two villages where no sites for transformers can be obtained, and as a result electricity cannot be supplied to the people in those villages. If a site
for a transformer is required, under present conditions an order has to be obtained. Such an order may cost £50, although the site required is only a matter of 25 feet by 40 feet. The order will not only cost £50, but anything from 12 to 15 months will be required to get it through. That seems a ridiculous bit of machinery and one which needs immediate overhaul. It is not always the landowner who causes difficulties, but sometimes a local authority or a hospital or a college or even a benefit society. All these bodies are to blame. I hope that the Minister will find some remedy for that situation.
Again I would congratulate the hon. Member for having brought forward this Motion. I hope that the Minister will find time to look into the many matters that have been raised during the Debate. If he can do so, not only will he be rendering a great benefit to the industry, but he will be doing something to contribute towards a solution of the problem of unemployment.

Major COLVILLE: In the very short time at my disposal I wish to say that I support the Motion heartily, because it really resolves itself into a vote of confidence in the policy of the last Government and a determination to carry on that policy. If I had had more time I could have stated what the scheme has done in the country that I know. Scotland has led the way in this matter. The central Scottish electricity scheme is very nearly completed. By next May the grid will be complete. The work there has involved contracts of £1,300,000 and it is all British material.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the progress which has been made by the electricity supply industry and assures the Government of all support in any efforts it may make to secure the utmost possible efficiency in the generation and distribution of electricity and to make available a cheap and abundant supply of energy for all industrial and domestic purposes, particular regard being paid to the needs of the rural areas and to the close relationship which should exist between. the coal-mining and electricity supply industries; and this House is of opinion that electricity supply constitutes a public utility service so vital to the needs of industry in general and to the national welfare that it should be organised on such a basis that national economic interests will he paramount.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS CONTRIBUTING TO RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, on or before the 17th day of December a printed copy of every Private Bill for which application is intended to be made during the present Session shall be deposited at the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.
If it appears to the Lord Privy Seal that any such Bill contains provisions relating to works the execution of which would substantially contribute to the relief of unemployment he may on or before the 15th day of January send to Mr. Speaker a certificate to that effect and notify the Promoters of such Bill accordingly, and a Bill with respect to which such a certificate and notice are so given is hereinafter referred to as a certified Bill; and where in the opinion of the Lord Privy Seal any such Bill, in addition to containing such provisions as aforesaid, contains other provisions distinct therefrom not relating to such works as aforesaid, the certificate shall state which of the provisions (hereinafter referred to as certified provisions) are the provisions of the Bill which relate to such works as aforesaid.
As soon as may be after it has been received by him, every such certificate shall be laid by Mr. Speaker upon the Table of the House.
In the case of a certified Bill the Standing Orders relating to Private Business shall have effect subject to the following provisions, and so far as inconsistent with those provisions shall not apply:—

(1) Every such Bill introduced into the House of Commons shall be ordered to be read a Second time on the fourth day after the day on which it is presented or, if the House is not sitting on that day, then on the next day thereafter on which the House would ordinarily sit;
(2) Where any such Bill contains both certified and other provisions then, as soon as the Bill has been read a Second time, a Motion may be made with or without notice as to the Committee to which the certified provisions shall be committed, and if such a Motion be agreed to the certified provisions shall proceed separately as a certified Bill, and the remaining provisions of the Bill shall stand committed to the Committee of Selection or to the Local Legislation Committee, as the case may be, and any Petition which has been deposited against the Bill shall be deemed to be a Petition for all purposes against each of the separate Bills, or if notice in writing to that effect in given in the Committee and Private Bill Office by the Petitioner against such one of the Bills as is specified in such notice;
(3) Any certified Bill promoted by a company already constituted by Act of Parliament or by any company, society, association, or co-partnership, whether a
555
company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1929, or otherwise constituted, shall not after Second Reading be referred to the Examiners, but compliance with Standing Orders 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66, or any of them, shall be proved before the Committee to whom such Bill is referred;
(4) Any Committee to whom a certified Bill is referred shall have leave to consider it forthwith, provided that a filled-up Bill shall have been previously deposited, and shall hear and determine any question of locus standi;
(5) Any certified Bill if amended in Committee Shall be ordered to lie upon the Table, and shall be taken into consideration on the day on which the House shall next sit provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited, and the Third Reading of such Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill as amended;
(6) Any certified Bill, if not amended in Committee, shall be ordered to be read the Third time on the day on which the House shall next sit;
(7) All Amendments made by the House of Lords to a certified Bill shall, if unopposed, be considered forthwith and, if opposed, shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall determine.

When it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords;
(8) Where the Promoters of a Private Bill have not deposited a Petition for such Bill on or before the 17th day of December and the Lord Privy Seal sends to Mr. Speaker such a certificate as aforesaid, the Promoters of such Bill shall have leave to deposit a Petition for the Bill in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and such Petition shall stand referred to the Examiners." (By Order.)—[Mr. J. H. Thomas.]

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The Motion on the Order Paper is a long one and I can quite understand Members in all parts of the House wondering what all these words mean. I therefore wish to state to the House that the object of this Motion is not in any way to interfere with the rights of this House or of Private Members. There is nothing in this new Standing Order which takes away from Members of the House their legitimate rights either to oppose, object to or obstruct any Measure which they feel ought not to receive the sanction of the House. In the proposals which I announced to the House in the early part of this Session I indicated certain
changes of Government policy with regard to the contributions that we were prepared to make to local authorities and public utility companies. I also indicated that in my view the changed terms would enable many municipalities to take advantage of the offer which I made. This has been proved by the response, but I then found myself confronted with this difficulty. Although a large number of municipalities and public utility companies were prepared to take advantage of the offer and throw themselves into the effort to provide work, they, unfortunately, had not the necessary Parliamentary powers. The result was that although schemes were agreed to, and terms were accepted, yet before any work could be undertaken it was necessary for them to go through the usual procedure of obtaining Parliamentary sanction. Members in all parts of the House will realise the delay involved and will agree with me that instead of waiting in the ordinary way until about May or June of next year if we can expedite matters without trespassing on or taking advantage of the rights of the House, then it is our duty to do so.
A second point rises. Certain municipalities and public utility companies are still negotiating terms and although they may agree to the terms, yet because they have not deposited Bills in December, according to the ordinary statutory provision, they will find themselves in this difficulty. They may have agreed as to terms with me, and everything may be satisfactorily arranged, but they will have to deposit Bills next December, with the result that nothing can be done for, approximately, 18 months. I repeat that that is not a satisfactory position. The municipalities are genuinely anxious to help and, therefore, in the new Standing Order which I now move I am taking all the steps possible to facilitate Bills of that kind. A municipality may, however—quite wisely from the standpoint of the ratepayer—feel that if it is going forward to get Parliamentary powers then instead of making two bites of a cherry it might as well include in one Bill all powers of all kinds which it may desire. It may reasonably be expected that there will he opposition to certain parts of such a Bill. Other local authorities and interests of various kinds may object. The unemployment proposals in
a Bill may be agreed to by everybody, but the other parts of the Bill may be objected to for various reasons and, in the ordinary course, the result would be that the unemployment portion of the Bill would be held up because of these objections to the other parts of it. Therefore I have taken power in this Standing Order to get over the difficulty by separating the different parts of the Bill. That is to say, the unemployment section of the Bill, which I am taking powers to certify, can be removed from the other parts of the Bill. It will be possible then to get on with the unemployment part of the Bill, while the ordinary procedure will still apply to the other parts of it.
It is only fair to say that the facilities for securing expedition on these technical points are very largely in the hands of the Parliamentary Bar and the Parliamentary agents. I am pleased to say that in the difficult task of drawing up this Motion I have had the help both of the Parliamentary Bar and of the Parliamentary agents, and I am empowered to say on their behalf that they accept the new Standing Order and are ready to give every assistance they can. I take this opportunity of thanking them. I ought also to say that this Standing Order would be of no avail unless there was agreement with it, in another place. It is well known to hon. Members that there is the necessity for this Private Bill legislation to be facilitated in another place as well as here, and I am pleased to say that the Chairman of Committees in another place is making a similar Motion to this and that every effort will be made on his part to facilitate the procedure. I am not attempting to read the terms of the Motion. If I did so perhaps no one would be any the wiser. I have, I think, given a simple explanation of it and I repeat that we are not taking away the rights of Private Members. We are safeguarding the interests of the House in every way and the only object of the Motion is to enable me, as the Minister dealing with unemployment, to certify Bills which provide employment. Whatever our views on the unemployment question may be, I feel sure that Members in all parts of the House will agree that if we can do anything to hasten the provision of work which is so necessary, we ought to do so.

Mr. HARDIE: Does this Motion take any account of the state of affairs which has arisen in many distressed areas owing to the De-rating Act and the reduction in rateable valuations? This is such in some cases that no matter what money the Government may offer, the local authorities cannot face the additional burden on top of existing taxation. Will this help any of these local bodies to carry on any works? Are you going to give the full money in cases like that?

Mr. THOMAS: It would be impossible for me to suggest any Standing Order, or any amendment of a Standing Order which would do what my hon. Friend suggests. That is an entirely different matter. The alteration which I propose deals exclusively with the means whereby local authorities and public utility companies, who find themselves in agreement with the Government on schemes to provide work, will have the advantage of knowing that those schemes will be facilitated in the House of Commons.

Mr. HARDIE: But if one of these authorities has agreed but cannot raise the money owing to the reduction in rateable valuation following on the De-rating Act, what will you do then?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer is that none of these local authorities would agree to any scheme unless it could be financed.

Mr. HARDIE: But the unemployment is there.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think we ought to enter into a discussion of a matter which clearly has nothing to do with the proposed Motion.

Mr. THOMAS: I have just one other point. A number of Amendments appear on the Order Paper, none of them very controversial and many of them dealing with drafting points. Most of these, I think, I will be able to accept and, in asking the House to pass this Motion, I would repeat that I believe Members in all parts of the House are desirous of helping in this matter and the object of the Motion is to preserve the rights of Parliament, as well as expediting this means of dealing with the important problem of unemployment.

Mr. MacLAREN: Will this Motion preclude the House having ample time to criticise all schemes and all proposals
for monies to be spent upon schemes—such as the Charing Cross Bridge, for instance?

Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, I made it perfectly clear that the rights of Members are preserved. What I want to emphasise is that there are at least 20 or 30 Bills at this moment to which there is no objection whatever, and to which I can conceive of no objection being made, and surely, if we can facilitate the passage of these Bills into law, it is not unfair to ask the House to do so. If, on the other hand, on any of those Bills Members in any part of the House felt that they had a right to object, all the procedure for doing that is preserved to the House intact.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has stated his case with all his usual urbanity, but I am afraid that in so doing he has not made quite clear to the House the seriousness of the change in procedure that is proposed. I may say at once that I am not going to vote against this Motion, because it is based on a national emergency, but my mind goes back a good many years, and, if I might humbly venture to do so, I would remind the House of what happened when we passed emergency legislation at the commencement of the War. I remember very well, when a Measure affecting the lives and the status of citizens was passed in five minutes—First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading—and we have been suffering from that particular Measure ever since. I therefore suggest to the House that it is most important that, notwithstanding the approval of Parliamentary agents or Parliamentary counsel, it should under no circumstances 'abrogate its right to scrutinise with the utmost care so far-reaching a proposal as this.
I was very glad indeed to hear my right hon. Friend say that he proposes to accept most of the Amendments on the Paper—I hope the most important of them—standing in the names of hon. Members above the Gangway, but at the risk of detaining the House for one minute, may I remind it of the real importance of distinguishing between this kind of legislation and general legislation? Private Bill legislation discharges
two functions—first of all, the ordinary legislative function, and, in the second place, a most important one, namely, the judicial function, where Parliament comes into play in its protection of the rights of the individual citizen. These private Bills as a rule are promoted, as we all realise, by bodies or corporations which have very large funds at their disposal. Not the whole of it, but in the main private legislation has grown up in this House with the principal object of protecting the interests of the private citizen against great and powerful corporations which can move the House legislatively, to the great detriment, very often, not only of merely individual rights, but of public rights vested in individuals. Therefore, in regard to this double function, which is being drastically interfered with, notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said, I urge the House to exercise exceptional care.
We all want to assist the Lord Privy Seal in his very arduous task. Indeed, there is no man in public life to-day, I think, who has a heavier burden on his shoulders than has the Lord Privy Seal, and as far as I can assist him I want to do so. At the same time, the House must be very careful when it grants him, with all his good will, these powers, that it safeguards the general public in so doing. Let me point out one matter where I differ from my right hon. Friend. He said that in the proposal he is putting forward none of the rights of Members will be interfered with, but that is not so, for it is because it does interfere with those rights that this Motion is proposed. The words of the Motion are that "every private Bill" shall be subjected to this procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to divide most private Bills into two parts and make them two separate Bills, subject to all the machinery of Parliament:
Every such Bill introduced into the House of Commons"—
That is, a certified Bill or the certified portion of the Bill—
shall be ordered to be read a Second time on the fourth day after the day on which it is presented.
There is no Debate at all. It may be quite right to read it a Second time, but I do want the House to realise what it is doing. The whole question of Debate on the Second Reading goes by the board.
By the order of the right hon. Gentleman that Bill, no matter what its importance, no matter what private interests it affects, will be read a Second time. That is war legislation in full swing. It may be right; I am only saying that the House ought to know what it is doing. That Bill, so divided, comes before the House, and then it is referred in the usual way to one Committee or another by the Selection Committee, where I suppose it is subject to the ordinary rules under which these Bills are dealt with; but let us see what happens with regard to a Bill so presented to the notice of the Lord Privy Seal. What does he do with it? He will consult his permanent officials as to what part of the Bill shall be certified and what part shall not be certified. Who are the officials whom he will consult? Naturally he will consult the legal branch of his Department. The legal branch of the Lord Privy Seal's office is not familiar with Parliamentary procedure or Parliamentary processes. It is a purely legal branch, and—

Mr. THOMAS: It is important that the House should not be misled. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to mislead the House—

Sir D. MACLEAN: No, indeed.

Mr. THOMAS: —but the statement which he has made does mislead the House. I said that the rights of Members of the House would not be interfered with. I was assured of that, and I have now made further inquiries, and I find that the right hon. Gentleman has not read the Motion correctly. The procedure "ordered to be read a Second time" or "ordered to be read the Third time" is merely a form of the House which Mr. Speaker announces every day, but it does not take away the right of discussion. "Ordering to be read" is not ordering to be read without discussion or objection.

Mr. HARRIS: A day must be allotted.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think the wording might be a little more clear to the ordinary Member. It is a very important matter, and I am not saying it is not right to do this, but let me get back to the point which I was making. The legal department of my right hon. Friend is the only one, as the Motion now stands, which will be consulted as to what part of a Bill shall be certified and what part
shall not be certified. I hope my right hon. Friend will say at once that he proposes to accept an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), to the effect that no Bill shall be certified unless it has been referred to, and the opinion obtained of, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman and the Counsel to Mr. Speaker. These two officials are competent and have been trained in the Parliamentary way, the Parliamentary legal way, of looking at these questions. If that is accepted, that will to a large extent remove my objection to the Motion.
The right hon. Gentleman is taking here very great power over the Private Bill Legislation of this House, and the main thing that I urge upon him is that he will see to it that the legal officers of this House have the duty placed upon them to consider these Bills as and when they arise, so that their vast personal experience and the accumulated knowledge of their office will be available to the House on the question of whether or not those Bills are properly certified. I say that the ordinary legal department is not capable of doing that in the way in which I suggest it ought to be done. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will listen to the discussion and meet the wishes of the House, not in the interest of mere private privilege, but in the interest of maintaining the rights of the citizens, no matter who they are, so that they shall be fully, fairly and competently heard in any action which the House takes in connection with Private Bill legislation.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal and the House may rest assured that, so far as I am concerned—and I believe that I speak for my party here—we shall do nothing but help him in any way we can to grease the wheels and generally oil the machinery to enable him to carry out any schemes which he may have for the relief of unemployment. I believe we shall he able to arrange and agree upon certain Amendments which will render this Motion, as far as my Friends and I are concerned, unobjectionable. May I venture to correct a slip on his part in describing this as a Standing Order? If it were, I can assure him that it would receive the most strenuous
opposition. This is only a Sessional Order, and only a temporary matter, to meet an emergency.
8.0 p.m.
As to the general effect of this Motion, I believe—and I have had now some experience, more perhaps than some Members of this House—that our system of Private Bill legislation, curious and intricate as it may be to those who are not accustomed to it, is one of the most satisfactory and one of the most expeditious that is possible under any Parliamentary system at the present time; and I should view with the greatest apprehension any attempt to alter that in a hurry. It is only because this is merely a temporary Measure and a Sessional Order that one feels able to agree to it with less difficulty than one would if it was an attempt to make a permanent alteration in the Standing Orders. The experience gained from working under this Motion may perhaps teach us a good deal about our present Standing Orders in regard to Private Bill legislation. It may enable the House to realise that it is not very easy to alter it, and that it is at least doubtful whether it could be very much improved generally. My right hon. Friend who spoke just now raised a very serious point on which I would say a word. It was the question of whether this Motion, if it be carried, would prevent objections to, or discussions of, a Private Bill on Second Reading. An Amendment is down in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to meet that point, but I understand, after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman and the officers of this House, that there is at least a difference of opinion on the actual wording which ought to be used, but that there is undoubted authority, which I am bound to accept, that the wording of this Motion is correct, and would still preserve the right of Members to object to the Bill on Second Reading, and that consequently it would be set down for discussion in the ordinary way. If that be so, I shall not wish when the time comes to press my Amendment, but as my right hon. Friend has raised the question, and it is one undoubtedly of importance, it may be that we shall think it well, when we come to that Amendment, to ask you, Mr.
Speaker, to be good enough to give a ruling as to what would be the meaning and effect of the Motion in regard to that particular point.
We are anxious only to help the right hon. Gentleman to expedite schemes of this kind, which we all wish to see carried through. I have some little doubt whether this is really going to be of great use to him, but I hope that it will. If a private Bill is unopposed, it can be got through very speedily indeed, and it can be got through more speedily than usual by an ad hoc Motion for the purposes of that Bill, when occasion arises to suspend a particular Standing Order. But what I imagine the right hon. Gentleman wants to deal with mainly is opposed Bills, and he wants to prevent a waste of time. There, again, I hope that it may be so, but I would warn him that it is an extremely dangerous thing to tamper with these very complicated—you may call them if you like, archaic—Standing Orders, which work extraordinarily well, without a very great deal of consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman wants this Motion, he must not blame us if he finds that the result of attempting to make some alteration in this machinery gives a possible loophole to opponents of Bills to bring about even greater delay than they could have done if he had left the old Standing Orders to operate without any alteration. That is all I wish to say on the general principle. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I ought at once formally to move the first Amendment standing in my name, or whether the Amendment should be taken later on?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be an advantage if I explained that the procedure on an Order of this kind is different from that which is usually the custom when we are amending Motions or Clauses to Bills. The House will observe that I have not saved any Amendments in the Motion which I have put. The difference between this discussion and ordinary discussions is that Members can have a general discussion on the whole Motion, and the same Members taking part can consequently move Amendments if they like.

Mr. THOMAS: May I suggest, seeing that this is Private Members' night, that, if there is no opposition, we might
take the Amendments, and then I will indicate at once, and be able to reassure the House, what are the necessary safeguards.

Mr. LEIF JONES: May I put a question to my right hon. Friend? After the Second Reading of Private Bills there is at present an interval during which petitions against the Bill may be presented. That is a very essential part of the procedure, because in Private Bills, being the promotion of private interests, other private interests may be affected, and it is essential to give time to those interests to petition against the Bills. Under the procedure which has grown up, there is an interval after the Second Reading and before the Committee stage, during which petitions against a Bill can be presented, and they are referred to referees to see whether they are legitimate objections to the Bill and whether the petitioners have a locus standi in the matter. It is laid down that persons whose private interest are affected appear as suiters—

Mr. THOMAS: Obviously, on these technical matters I must take the advice of the legal authorities, but the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is, No, there is no interference whatever with the rights or the time for objections.

Mr. JONES: Do I understand that the three weeks during which petitions may be presented remain unaffected by this Motion?

Mr. THOMAS: indicated assent.

Mr. JONES: If that be so, that removes my objection on that score. There is only one other question. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Chairman of Committees in another place thoroughly approved of his Motion. May we take it that in this House the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is the guardian of our rights and of the rights of the petitioners outside, takes the same attitude as the Chairman in another place?

Mr. THOMAS: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Chairman of Ways and Means will be even more jealous of those rights.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I should like to have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether, if the
Amendments are taken now, I shall be in order in putting a point briefly at the end of the Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member can speak on the main Question as amended later on.

Commander WILLIAMS: I object to the whole of these proceedings. I gather that this is the time for a general discussion, and I do not feel inclined to waive my rights to discuss the matter now.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is within his rights in discussing the Motion now.

Mr. WHEATLEY: There are two points on which there is agreement. We first want to grant every facility to the Lord Privy Seal to get on with his work, and I hope that nothing will be done to impede his progress, or to create any situation that will delay the definite work in which he is engaged. The second point on which there is agreement is a desire to be quite clear as to the extent of the power that we are granting in this Motion. It has been pointed out that this is a temporary proposal, but am I to take it that it applies to this Session only?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes.

Mr. WHEATLEY: That satisfies me on that point. The other point on which I would like the right hon. Gentleman's view is this. Is this House to have any say whatever in what are to be treated as the certified provisions of the Bill? Each of these Bills is to be divided into two sections, and the ordinary procedure will be to certify the section that is to be treated as work for the relief of unemployment. Is the Lord Privy Seal's power to be absolute, or is this House to have any say, when the Bill comes here, as to what should be certified?

Mr. THOMAS: No matter what I certify in the separation of a Bill, the right of this House to discuss any portion of the Bill or to object remains absolute.

Mr. WHEATLEY: That is very satisfactory. I take it that the reply means that if the right hon. Gentleman certifies a part of the Bill as dealing substantially with the relief of unemployment, and this House does not agree that it deals substantially with the relief of unemployment, then this House can undo what
the right hon. Gentleman has done in his certificate?

Mr. THOMAS: Let us take a concrete proposal, and suppose that the Glasgow Corporation have decided to promote a scheme, say, for the provision of baths. I use that illustration because certain municipalities do not have that statutory power. In the Bill which they submit to the House, they are asking all manner of other powers, for instance, for the extension of their tramway system, and that is objected to by certain municipalities in the vicinity. I am not concerned for my purpose with the questions of the tramways. I am concerned only with the question affecting the provision of baths. I, therefore, certify—it will obviously be after consultation with the authorities—that part of the Bill dealing with the baths. My right hon. Friend wants to know what happens to him when he objects to that provision. It would come before this House; both sections of the Bill would come before this House, and if objections were raised to either or both parts, nothing would prevent my right hon. Friend objecting. The Chairman of Ways and Means would then have to name a day for the ordinary Second Reading Debate, as if I had not certified the Clause.

Sir D. MACLEAN: A very important statement has been made by the Lord Privy Seal; but I am still not quite clear whether after he has certified a portion of the Bill it will be open to the House to review his certificate. Is that so or is it not? As I read the Motion, it is not.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I was going to take a railway case as an illustration, but I will take the case suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I will suppose that the building of the baths is going to give substantial relief to unemployment and that he certifies it as such, and that the extension of the tramways is going to give substantial relief to unemployment, and that he certifies it as such, but that there are people in this House who object to the inclusion of the tramways extension in that certificate. In that case, would those Members, when the Bill with certified parts came to the House, have the power—or would the House have the power—to exclude the tramways from the certification? If so, what is the use of the certificate?

Mr. THOMAS: I will try to answer both points. Do not let us presume on all these technicalities. I am trying to give the House a commonsense answer and show how we propose to meet the difficulty. That is all I want to do. In these matters I can only be advised by the highest legal authorities I have. I gave an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) said "No, no." I have had it confirmed from the highest legal authorities that the answer I first gave was correct. Let me repeat it; and I will also answer the question which has been put as to what is the use of the certificate. I will answer the first question by saying that if any Member of the House objects either to a Bill that is not certified by me or one that is certified by me, that in both cases the same rights are preserved to that Member and the House. That is clear and specific. Then my right hon. Friend asked "If that be so, what is the value of this Standing Order, or this certificate?" The answer is that if there was opposition such as has been indicated by my right hon. Friend, progress in the case of that Bill would probably not be facilitated by an hour. But it is also true that a number of Bills which are not opposed will be facilitated by this procedure. If the House says it will not facilitate a Bill it will have the right to take that attitude. But where there is no objection and we can facilitate its progress by the procedure I have indicated, why should we not do it?

Mr. LEIF JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has even now not answered one question. He will, by certificate, divide a Bill into two. Supposing the promoters of the Bill object to its being divided into two, what is their position? Is his certificate not a final division of the Bill against which no one can appeal?

Mr. THOMAS: Do let us see what is the commonsense of the position as distinguished from the technicalities of it. I am asked, What is the position of the promotors of a Bill who object to my certificate of division? Is that a commonsense situation? A municipality comes to a Government Department and says, "Will you give me certain assistance?" The Department says, "Yes,"
details are discussed, and we agree upon them. The municipality then say, "We are so satisfied that we will promote a Bill in order to give effect to this arrangement." In doing so they include other matters in the Bill. What on earth right have you to assume that a municipality or any other body which wants this power and promotes a Bill will object to my giving them better facilities for getting it? It is too absurd to assume it.

Mr. PALMER: May I be allowed to put the same question in another way? Does the certifying of a Bill obviate any discussion on Second Reading?

Captain BOURNE: In so far as I can speak on behalf of hon. Members in this part of the House I would like to say that we do not propose to object to this Sessional Order to meet a period of stress. Our only anxiety is to preserve three things. The first point, I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, is already settled, and that is that hon. Members will not lose their right to object to and to debate any private Bill under this procedure, at any stage, if they so desire. The second point, which we want to preserve very carefully, is the right of opponents to private Bills to present petitions against them. As the right hon. Gentleman for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) has said, this procedure by private Bills is designed to give protection to the individual, and we are very anxious that nothing in the Standing Order should do anything to interfere with those rights. The third point on which we want to be assured is that the promoters of the Bill shall not be rendered liable to higher fees in this House because the Bill has been divided into two parts. After all, the division of the Bill is probably not altogether a convenience for the promoters. The right hon. Gentleman has given the instance of a municipality which wants to build baths and to extend its tramways, and it may include in the Bill sanitary and police clauses. For the convenience of the municipality it is easier to have one Bill than two, because two Bills may very likely mean the attendance of their officials here on two separate occasions during the Session. Because the right hon. Gentleman desires to assist employment no further costs ought to be put on the promoters by the division of the Bill than would have been
payable had the Bill proceeded as one Measure.

Mr. THOMAS: With regard to the question of fees, naturally I found myself up against that right away, and therefore, at a later stage, I propose to move an Amendment which will meet that point.

Captain BOURNE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. There are one or two questions I would like to ask him on the actual working of this Standing Order. Paragraph (3) of this Standing Order deals with the Wharncliffe Standing Orders, and I need not weary the House by reading them. The Lord Privy Seal said that the Committee had to satisfy themselves that the Standing Order had been complied with, but cases might arise where the Standing Orders have not been complied with, and then the Bill under the ordinary procedure would have to be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, who would have to decide whether they should recommend the suspension of the Standing Orders. The whole question of the locus standi of certain shareholders depends on these Standing Orders being complied with. I do not suggest that such a case will arise very often, but the locus standi of these persons is a matter of great importance to them and may be taken away by these proposals, and I think that is a point which requires consideration.
I do not object to the proposal which is being made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I suggest to him that the locus standi should be dealt with by the Committee rather than by the Court of Referees. This return to a procedure of more than 60 years ago is only useful, in the case of a Joint Committee of both Houses. The objection to the old procedure was that both the petitioner and the promoters had to bring up all their witnesses to the Committee, and very often they did not know whether certain evidence which they had prepared would be admitted. Paragraph (4) provides that the Committee shall hear and determine any question of locus standi, but I do not think that is a proceeding likely to save expense. For a very long time there has been a certain amount of jealousy between the House and Government Departments upon the question of giving effect to this private Bill pro-
cedure. We quite realise that the Lord Privy Seal is dealing with a very different problem, but we sincerely hope that what is now proposed will not be taken as a precedent.

Sir D. HERBERT: Perhaps it would save time if I moved the first Amendment on the Order Paper.

Commander WILLIAMS: I object to that course. The point I wish to raise is quite a short one. There are many points which might appropriately be raised by a private Member. I do not think it is right that in regard to a matter which affects private Members we should not be allowed to express our opinion without going into technical details which have not been very fully explained.

Mr. THOMAS: I think I have given a common-sense interpretation of what the words mean. I am within the recollection of the House, and I think I stated that I do not object to any questions being raised in this Debate. I believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) is quarrelling not with the words but with the Standing Order, and he objects to the Standing Order tooth and nail.

Commander WILLIAMS: That is not so. I certainly do not object to the wording of the Order. I should be the very last to desire even for a second to delay anything which might help the unemployed, but I would like to point out that up to the present moment we have had only the point of view of what I may call the Parliamentary experts. I have been in this House only some eight or nine years, but I have invariably found throughout the whole of that period that, whenever there was agreement amongst the experts of this House in regard to any form of procedure, sooner or later the rights of the ordinary private Member were bound to suffer. I think the Lord Privy Seal showed his usual wisdom when he said that he would not read out the Order, because nobody would be the wiser for it. We are now being asked to pass an Order which cannot be read out because it is so involved that nobody would understand it. I have read this Order fairly carefully. I notice that the
Lord Privy Seal, in his opening remarks, did not tell us how long the Order was to operate, but I believe the period is one year. As far as I can find out at the present time this is an entirely new precedent set up for the convenience of the present time. I do not object to this proposal if it is going to do any good, but in the past there has been an unfortunate habit of taking away a little bit of the rights of the private Member year after year, and those rights have been very much curtailed. For these reasons I object to the precedent which is set by this Order.
Another reason why I object is that, under this Order, we are apparently giving to the Lord Privy Seal the right to issue a certificate. I say quite frankly from my own point of view as a private Member, that I do not think it is right that a single individual should have the power to give a certificate affecting legislation which we passed in this House dealing with many of our great municipalities. If we set up a special Committee or a special authority to consult the various bodies in this House, then the proposal might be all right, but to give this power to one single individual, although it may be given temporarily, is a proposal which I thoroughly dislike, and I think the House ought not to grant that power.
I apologise for having taken up the time of the House for some four or five minutes, but it is my experience that on these occasions over and over again things are done which the ordinary private Member regrets in the future. Although I have no wish in any way to object to the proceedings on this Order, I say that it is one which, in my very humble opinion, private Members would be well advised to look at carefully, as being likely to be used again a great deal in the future, and as being, if extended, not in the interests of either the House of Commons, the municipalities, or the country as a whole. For that reason I am sorry that it has been brought forward to-night.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in line 6, after the second word "the," to insert the word "early."
This is a very simple Amendment, the object of which is merely to confine the operation of this Motion to Bills con-
taining provisions relating to works the execution of which would substantially contribute to the early relief of unemployment. It is obvious that it ought not to apply to Bills which would be calculated merely to relieve unemployment, say in five years' time. As to that I think there will probably be no dispute.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that this Amendment is being accepted?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes.

Mr. MAXTON: I conclude from that that the Lord Privy Seal understands what is meant by the Amendment. I was going to ask if the Mover of the Amendment would tell us exactly what it means.

Mr. THOMAS: The point is a very simple one. I am asking for facilities for the relief of unemployment, and my right hon. Friend has merely moved that the word "early" be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in line 10, to leave out the words "in the opinion of," and to insert instead thereof the words "it appears to."
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I desire to move the two next Amendments standing in my name in a slightly different form from that in which they appear on the Paper. Following the Amendment which I am now moving, I desire to move, after the word "Seal," in line 10 to insert the words "after consultation with the Counsel to Mr. Speaker." I understand that objection would be taken in another place to our inserting in our Standing Orders any reference to the Counsel to the Lord Chairman.
The point of these Amendments is really a very simple one. Obviously in many cases, when the Lord Privy Seal comes to certify a Bill, there will be great difficulty in deciding which Clauses are consequential on his certificate and should go into the certified Bill, and which should not. I will give an illustration. Suppose that a Bill is promoted by a municipality to construct a waterworks, to buy out a tramway company, and perhaps to do two or three other things. The part of the Bill which relates to the
construction of the waterworks will obviously give employment, while the part which is merely to buy out the existing tramway undertaking will not give any additional employment; and there may be other questions connected with lighting, paving and so on which will not give additional employment over and above that normally given by the municipality. Coupled with all that, there may be Clauses dealing with finance, that is to say, with rating, borrowing powers, and a hundred and one other questions of that sort with which any hon. Member who has sat on a Private Bill Committee will be quite familiar. It is very difficult for anyone who has not had a great experience of Private Bill administration to know which Clauses, and especially which financial Clauses, are directly consequential on the part which the Lord Privy Seal has certified, and which are not. I suggest that the person who could give the best advice on this matter is the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, whose duty it is to peruse every one of these Bills, who is thoroughly familiar with our procedure, and who would be able to advise the Lord Privy Seal far better than his permanent officials on what, after all, is a highly technical question.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. THOMAS: If this responsibility were solely entrusted to me, it would obviously be my duty to get all the assistance and advice necessary. If behind the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend there is any idea that I am going to appoint some highly placed legal authority, I want to disabuse him of it right away. I gather that he had some such idea, and I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset that there is no such intention, and that no such appointment will be made. The difficulty of accepting the Amendment is that it would mean specifying one individual. Surely, the House will see at once, not only that that is undesirable, but that it circumscribes the Minister. In the case of a Bill which I desire to divide, on the advice of those in the Department, what would they have to do first? They will not only have the benefit of all their technical knowledge, but, obviously, the first thing they will do will be to consult the other Departments concerned, and get their views. Then, naturally, because the House of Commons would be affected, the next step
would be to consult Mr. Speaker's Counsel. That is the natural and ordinary procedure, with which I agree. To put these words into the Order would merely be to say that one individual would be the authority, and, therefore, I know that behind the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend there was the idea that we were going to appoint some legal authority. I give him the assurance that nothing of the kind will be done. I resist the Amendment, not because I do not agree with its intention and spirit, but because I want to give an even broader effect to it than is indicated.

Captain BOURNE: In view of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in line 20, to leave out the words "ordered to be read a second time," and to insert instead thereof the words "set down for Second Reading."
This Amendment raises the very important point which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), and discussed by several other speakers, as to the right of Members of this House, under this Motion, if it be carried, to object to the Second Reading of a Private Bill and to ensure its being discussed. I have referred very carefully to the Standing Orders, and it is perfectly true that these words "ordered to be read a second time," appear in Standing Order No. 197, in circumstances in which, it is perfectly certain, according to the practice of this House in the past, they merely mean that when the Bill comes before the House for Second Reading it can be objected to, and is thereupon set down for Second Reading. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, and if you, Sir, can tell me that you agree with the view that the wording of the Motion would be interpreted as Standing Order 197 has in practice been interpreted, and that it would not deprive Members of the power to object and get a discussion of the Bill, I will not press the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman has truly interpreted the meaning of Standing Order 197, and the
words would be better as left in the Standing Order than if they were altered as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In line 28, leave out the word "committed," and insert instead thereof the word "referred."—[Sir D. Herbert.]

In line 42, after the word "that," insert the words:
the time for petitioning against the Bill shall have expired and that."—[Captain Bourne.]

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in line 42, to leave out the word "previously," and to insert instead thereof the words "previous to the meeting of the Committee."
This is a drafting Amendment. I am not certain that it is necessary and I am informed that there are great difficulties about it, and, if so, I do not press it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made:

In line 45, leave out the word "shall" and insert instead thereof the word "may."—[Sir D. Herbert.]

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, in line 50, at the end, to insert the words:
(7) Where in pursuance of this Order the certified provisions and the remaining provisions proceed as separate Bills, the fees for proceedings before Committees to be paid by the promoters and by any petitioners who appeal against both Bills, shall not exceed the fees payable for proceedings on the Bill in respect of which they have incurred the greater fees and the total fees payable on Report and Third Reading of the two Bills shall not exceed the fees which would have been payable if the original Bill had been proceeded with in the usual manner.

The object of this is to give effect to what I indicated earlier on.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: There are one or two points that I wish to raise, and, as several hon. Members have been eloquent in defence of their rights as private Members, oblivious of the fact that their eloquence has deprived private Members of their time to-night, I shall be brief. The Lord Privy Seal, in moving his Order, made reference to the response
he has received to the appeals he made to local authorities to expedite undertakings which would provide work, but he has given us no indication whatever as to the extent of the response which he has received. In other words, the House has received no indication of the expenditure which he is asking us to assist him to expedite.

Mr. THOMAS: I ascertained that it would be out of order to deal with the general problem of unemployment. That would be affected by finance. I indicated that my information was that at least 20 to 30 Bills were affected by the proposals I made.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman make that statement. As he referred to the response he has received, I thought possibly he might have been in order in going further and giving the House some indication as to what the actual response had been. If it is out of order, I will not attempt to press him. At the same time, one must remember that the Order involves a very drastic alteration in the procedure which the House has hitherto been accustomed to pursue with regard to Bills that involve expenditure. Hitherto any Bill which has involved the expenditure of any public money has had additional difficulties placed in the way of it. This is more than a drastic alteration. It implies a complete reversal of the procedure which has hitherto been adopted, because it means that we are now asked to facilitate expenditure rather than put difficulties in the way of it. If the question of unemployment could be solved entirely by that expenditure, I would not raise the question, but there is such a thing as robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is certain that the mere expenditure of money will not solve it.

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have heard my speech. There is nothing in this proposal that affects expenditure. This House has the same control over expenditure on unemployment with this amended Standing Order as it had before, and it is unfair, and not correct, to say the House is giving up its power of control.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I still hold my opinion that the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to facilitate expendi-
ture, although we may not increase it and may not be prejudicing our rights in any way. As I am in favour of this Order going through, I will not attempt to argue the matter with the right hon. Gentleman.
There is another point which I should like to raise. Perhaps he will say that this also has been explained. Probably it has. I admit, even after 11 years' experience in this House, that I am still a child in understanding Parliamentary wording and Parliamentary procedure. We have it stated here that the 17th day of December is the date on or before which Bills must be deposited at the right hon. Gentleman's office. There has been, as I know, considerable difficulty in coming to agreement with regard to certain Bills which are frequently put forward. I am perfectly aware that in Paragraph (8) something is said to the effect that this Motion will not prejudice those Bills which are delayed. I should like an assurance that in the event of a Bill coming in rather late—I think I know of one, at any rate, in regard to which there is difficulty in coming to an agreement between the parties concerned—such Bill will not be debarred from being considered.

Mr. THOMAS: I made it perfectly clear that the first object of the Motion was to facilitate the passage of Bills deposited in the ordinary way. The second part of the Motion is intended to enable municipalities who are late coming in, as has been indicated, to facilitate their procedure in regard to private Bills.

Sir J. CANZONI: I do not rise to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I ought to say a few words to recommend this Motion to the House and thereby dissolve some of the doubts in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), or similar doubts in the minds of other hon. Members. There is a reason for my doing so, as I happen to be the only surviving Chairman of Private Bill Committees in this House at the present time. Two former Chairmen are no longer here for reasons over which they have no control, and another retired at the end of the last Parliament. When I first heard of this Notice of Motion, I certainly had some suspicions, and I looked into the matter very carefully. I am quite
satisfied now that there is nothing what-even in the Motion, as amended, that circumscribes the rights of private Members of the Floor of the House. I can assure them, having been Chairman since 1922 sitting every year on these Committees, that it in no way whatever affects in the slightest degree or curtails the rights of private Members.
I certainly do not wish, considering the great interests involved, not to help the Lord Privy Seal, but there is one warning I would give to him and to the House, having taken part in this kind of work in the House. Although the Lord Privy Seal's Amendment covers the question of increased fees, there will necessarily be increased costs on the part of learned counsel and increased costs of travelling which are inevitable in the careful hearing of long private Bills. I do not think that that is sufficiently important to set against the great work which we all want, in all quarters of the House, the Lord Privy Seal to get on with. Would he now kindly give some assurance as to what will happen in the case of those Bills which do not satisfy the Private Bill Committee? Formerly, they went to the examiners.

Mr. THOMAS: As we know, there may be a technical point raised, and I am assured—and I will give reasons—in the unlikely event of the non-compliance with this Order being such that the Committee would not proceed with the Bill, the Committee would make a special report to the House. This special report would be referred by the House of Commons as a matter of course to the Standing Orders Committee, which would decide whether non-compliance was so serious as to warrant them refusing to allow the promoters to proceed.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
Private Bills contributing to Relief of Unemployment,—On or before the 17th day of December a printed copy of every Private Bill for which application is intended to be made during the present Session shall be deposited at the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.
If it appears to the Lord Privy Seal that any such Bill contains provisions relating to works the execution of which would substantially contribute to the early relief of unemployment he may on or before the 15th
day of January send to Mr. Speaker a certificate to that effect and notify the Promoters of such Bill accordingly, and a Bill with respect to which such a certificate and notice are so given is hereinafter referred to as a certified Bill; and where in the opinion of the Lord Privy Seal any such Bill, in addition to containing such provisions as aforesaid, contains other provisions distinct therefrom not relating to such works as aforesaid, the certificate shall state which of the provisions (hereinafter referred to as certified provisions) are the provisions of the Bill which relate to such works as aforesaid.
As soon as may be after it has been received by him, every such certificate shall be laid by Mr. Speaker upon the Table of the House.
In the case of a certified Bill the Standing Orders relating to Private Business shall have effect subject to the following provisions, and so far as inconsistent with those provisions shall not apply:—

(1) Every such Bill introduced into the House of Commons shall be ordered to be read a Second time on the fourth day after the day on which it is presented or, if the House is not sitting on that day, then on the next day thereafter on which the House would ordinarily sit;
(2) Where any such Bill contains both certified and other provisions then, as soon as the Bill has been read a Second time, a Motion may he made with or without notice as to the Committee to which the certified provisions shall be committed, and if such a Motion be agreed to the certified provisions shall proceed separately as a certified Bill, and the remaining provisions of the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee of Selection or to the Local Legislation Committee, as the case may be, and any Petition which has been deposited against the Bill shall be deemed to be a Petition for all purposes against each of the separate Bills, or if notice in writing to that effect is given in the Committee and Private Bill Office by the Petitioner against such one of the Bills as is specified in such notice;
(3) Any certified Bill promoted by a company already constituted by Act of Parliament or by any company, society, association, or co-partnership, whether a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1929, or otherwise constituted, shall not after Second Reading be referred to the Examiners, but compliance with Standing Orders 62, 63, 64, 65, and 66, or any of them, shall be proved before the Committee to whom such Bill is referred;
(4) Any Committee to whom a certified Bill is referred shall have leave to consider it forthwith, provided that the time for petitioning against the Bill shall have expired and that a filled-up Bill shall have been previously deposited, and shall hear and determine any question of locus standi;
581
(5) Any certified Bill, if amended in Committee, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table and may be taken into consideration on the day on which the House shall next sit provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited, and the Third Reading of such Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill as amended;
(6) Any certified Bill, if not amended in Committee, shall be ordered to be read the Third time on the day on which the House shall next sit;
(7) Where in pursuance of this Order the certified provisions and the remaining provisions proceed as separate Bills, fees for proceedings before Committees to be paid by the promoters and by any petitioners who appeal against both Bills, shall not exceed the fees payable for proceedings on the Bill in respect of which they have incurred the greater fees and the total fees payable on Report and Third Reading of the two Bills shall not exceed the fees which would have been Payable if the original Bill had been proceeded with in the usual manner.
(8) All Amendments made by the House of Lords to a certified Bill shall, if unopposed, be considered forthwith and, if opposed, shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall determine.

When it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords;
(9) Where the Promoters of a Private Bill have not deposited a Petition for such Bill on or before the 17th day of December and the Lord Privy Seal sends to Mr. Speaker such a certificate as aforesaid, the Promoters of such Bill shall have leave to deposit a Petition for the Bill in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and such Petition shall stand referred to the Examiners."

COLONIAL POLICY IN RELATION TO COLOURED RACES.

Mr. MARLEY: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the Native population of our dependencies should not be exploited as a source of low-grade labour; no governmental pressure should be used to provide wage-labour for employers; due care should be taken of Native social well-being; the Native demand for land should be adequately and satisfactorily met and their rights therein properly safeguarded; where the Native population is not yet fitted for self-Government direct imperial control of Native policy should be fully maintained; Native self-governing institutions should be
fostered; and franchise and legal rights should be based upon the principle of equality for all without regard to race or colour.
9.0 p.m.
I rise at this belated hour to move this Motion in regard to Colonial policy. I would say to the House one thing, in case it might be thought by same hon. Members that this is not an important matter. If hon. Members ever have the privilege by the luck of the ballot to put a similar Motion down, their post bag will soon show them that this is an extremely important subject receiving the attention of millions of people in the Empire. It is not my intention, or the intention of any hon. Members associated with me in putting down this Motion, to make the coloured races and their problems the playthings of party politics in the House of Commons. It would be the worst possible thing for the native races if it were to be discovered or suspected that, with the change of parties in this House, there would be a difference of attitude in relation to the indigenous people in those parts of the Empire over which we still have control. It is generally recognised by the white races of the world that we owe a great deal to the coloured races and that it is our duty to accept the trusteeship which economic power has given us over the fortunes and destinies of these people.
I am going to leave India out of the discussion to-night and deal with indigenous people other than Indians, upon whose condition there is a Commission of Inquiry which will in due course receive a great deal of attention in this House and elsewhere. Africa has been portioned out without reference to the indigenous people. Those who have been in a position to take the soil have allocated it to themselves, sometimes merely having a map for reference and not having been to that country or to any other part of the Empire. They have merely marked out their portions of which they claim control. Here we have the possibility of economic development within the next 20 or 30 years which may, and in my opinion will, direct the lives and the conditions of livelihood of these native peoples for practically all time. His Majesty's Government accept a trusteeship in relation to these people in the Crown Colonies and in mandated territories, and the officers of His Majesty's
Government, whether it be this Government or any other Government, act as trustees, and it is the primary duty of trustees to look after the ward.
Our policy with regard to native peoples does not give rise to any big discussion where the indigenous people are in a part of the earth where it is not possible for the white people to live and prosper. The question becomes acute in those areas where it is possible for European settlement to take place, where there arises very soon after the settlement a divergence and conflict of economic interests. It is well that we should notice the extraordinary difference in our native policy in West Africa and that adopted in regard to East Africa, whether it be Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya or elsewhere. In West Africa it is more or less recognised that economic exploitation will not be left in the hands of white people. Therefore, certain privileges and rights have been vested in the tribes there, for the development of that country.
In East Africa, in South Africa and Central Africa, whether under this Government or any other Government, the question takes on a new aspect. It is in relation to those parts which are possible of development by European or indigenous native labour where settlement is possible, that the greatest exploitation of the indigenous population can take place. We say in the Motion that
the Native population of our dependencies should not be exploited as a source of low-grade labour.
In these particular countries the natives are for the most part agriculturists, and as soon as you touch the question of low-grade labour you go right down to the question of land. It is in regard to land policy that the exploitation of the indigenous population takes place. I am using the word "indigenous" specifically, because we are all natives of some place, and I am using the word "indigenous" in order that we may understand exactly the people to whom I refer. It may be argued, with a great deal of reason and logic, that in order to advance these people there ought to be experimental farming and large scale production going on alongside their own settlement, that
for that purpose we ought to alienate a certain amount of land for the development of the natives, and that in order to preserve primal organisations and the customs and laws of the tribes we should segregate them into certain reserves.
The policy of segregation is more or less accepted by large numbers of people, without question, but it is possible, while pretending to be kindly towards the native in using the policy of segregation, to use all the economic advantages of the land which was his, and yet exploit him of his labour, and leave him in the same bankrupt condition that he was in when first we went there. When you have segregation in reserves a difficulty arises at once. If you segregate the natives in reserves, where are the settlers to get their labour? They want the labour of the indigenous population, and they proceed to bargain with the native to leave his reserve and work in their settlement. Here I come to the second portion of our Resolution, with respect to whether Government pressure ought to be brought upon the native to leave his reserve and go to work for white settlers. What do we mean by the Government using pressure? We mean the Government permitting such a policy of taxation as to leave no option to the native but to leave his reserve, or so to arrange the land policy that it is impossible for the native to keep himself out of his own labour and his own effort within the reserve.
It is of the utmost importance that honesty and faithfulness in regard to our position should be kept with the natives in connection with the reserves. When a line of demarcation has been laid down it ought to be laid down definitely, once and for all, and it ought not to be possible to take land away from the native reserve or to lease or sublet in any way, because that breaks the natives' faith in the administrators and the people who are connected with their government. We are often advised to take into consideration the ideas of the man on the spot. In relation to that suggestion I would like to tell a story of an African native who was spoken to by a missionary on questions concerning land, Poll tax and Hut tax. The native said: "God must be a very wise person to live so far away." "Why," asked the missionary
"What makes you think that?" "Because," replied the native, "if he lived quite close at hand he would be so involved and so pressed upon by all the different interests that he would find it very awkward to be just in his decisions in regard to any particular problem that confronted him." The man on the spot because of the social conditions of his life is more or less unwillingly biassed in his attitude towards this problem. Let it not be thought for a moment that I mean that as an aspersion upon the Civil Service or those who administer in these areas. The representations which have been made to me in the last five or six weeks show that whenever there is a question of getting an unofficial majority in place of an official one, all sections of coloured people, whether they be Indians, or indigenous people, prefer an official majority to an unofficial majority, at the moment.
I am afraid that I am going rather a long way in relation to this subject, in view of the field that I have to cover, and as I am anxious to leave ample opportunity for others who desire to take part in the Debate, will proceed more rapidly. In relation to land there is the Hut tax and the Poll tax. Here I would appeal to the Government to see that the. Hut tax and the Poll tax are not such as to compel the native to leave his reserve and work in settlement areas, when he does not so desire. I would, further, ask them to consider making representations in regard to the removal of the Poll tax from the women. At the moment, the only women excluded from the Poll tax are widows who are beyond the child-bearing age, and in certain cases it is also levied upon children of 13 years of age. When the Poll tax becomes heavy, it arises almost of necessity that one of the family, whether it be the father, the mother, a boy or a girl have to go out from the reserve, and that means the breaking up of family life and the deprivation of these people. There is a system in Kenya whereby when a native contracts he comes under a special code known to natives as "Kipandi." His finger prints are taken and he is treated more or less as a convict. If he breaks his contract he is liable to six months' imprisonment or to an equivalent period of forced labour. I appeal to the Government to see how far it is possible
to institute a medical service or native hospital within the reserves. I am informed that there is only one native hospital in the whole of the East African territories, Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya. There is a medical service carried on by missionaries, very low indeed in regard to expenditure and very inefficient in regard to medical qualifications.
I also want to ask this question in relation to land. Would it not be possible for permission to be granted to natives within their reserves to grow any economical crop which is permitted to be grown outside by white settlers? It is argued that if natives are permitted to grow a coffee crop disease may spread from their plantations to the plantations of the settlers, and that is the reason for the de-rooting of the crops, of chief Koinangha, in Tanganyika in 1922. It must be remembered that many of the coffee plantations of settlers are in the control of natives, and it is well known in Tanganyika and Uganda by the natives, it may be that the growth of an economic crop like coffee, with proper marketing would afford a means whereby the native could pay his Hut and Poll taxes and would not have to go out and do forced labour. I do not say it is true; but that may be the case. Then in relation to the education of the natives. I am going to ask the House to seriously consider a proposition in relation to the whole question of native education. I think it would be a good thing to set up an inquiry, first of all, as to whether agriculture or technical education would be more suitable; whether the native language should be taught with English or with any other language, and whether advanced education should be given in the Protectorate and dependency or in the British Isles. If it is given in the dependency or colony, should it be given the same status as we have here?
At the moment higher education in relation to these colonies takes place here and in order to practise the higher professions in India or any of the colonies a British degree is almost essential. Many of these people who come here find it difficult indeed to get accommodation and when they go back they find it difficult to fit into the conditions in which they have to live. Whatever their degree and qualification they are socially ostracised by people of the same social standing in
the dependency. This is a vital thing. It is vital that we should decide our policy in regard to education and I appeal to the House to see the position and to lay down the lines upon which we should develop, because in 20 years' time Rhodesia and the whole of Central Africa will become a field for whites settlers in the exploitation of minerals to an extraordinary extent.
I would urge hon. Members to read certain hand books issued by the Government in regard to the geology and mineralogy of the whole of Central Africa. We ought to have a definite policy, and it should be an agreed policy, not the plaything of parties. When we have laid it down it should not be for immediate application to every one of these dependencies and colonies, irrespective of their conditions. We should be able to say: these people are now advanced to such a stage that we can apply this or that proposal. The individual educated natives are at the moment able to sow seeds of discontent by showing that there is a privilege here and a privilege there, which is not granted elsewhere; it is a differentiation between one particular Protectorate and another. Our policy should be so framed now that we can say to them that we are not precluded from taking the necessary step when the time arrives. We ought not to give away land or give dominion status to anybody anywhere which would preclude us carrying out the same policy to all individuals at the proper time when they are sufficiently advanced to benefit by the policy we have laid down. This House should not he less forward than the Parliament of 1893, which was responsible for giving self government to Natal. In that case the Government's instruction said:
The Governor shall not assent in our name to (8) any Bill whereby any persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected to or made liable to any disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European birth and descent are not also subjected and made liable to.
We have proposals in certain of the dependencies which go a long way from the spirit and letter of Colonial administration laid down in that year. Those who may dispute the difficulty of finding higher positions and the ability to take qualifications in our medical
institutions and universities and schools, if they will consult me afterwards I can show them actual documents of many students who have attempted to get places and have not succeeded. In relation to West Africa there is a very big dispute going on at the moment; a dispute over a Bill which is known as the Howard Bill, which proposes to give to the Governor-General power to select a chief, other than the one nominated by the chiefs, as a paramount chief, if he does not agree that the selection has been proper. Anyone who cares to read West African papers will find that this has been engaging the minds of intelligent West Africans for months past. There we have developed a policy in relation to the natives, in conjunction with the native chiefs, and in land policy in relation to the "white caps," which has been beneficial and has been recognised as such by the best West Africans. They are extremely loyal to the Crown and at the same time are extremely loyal to their own chiefs. They also object, I do not see much reason in their objection, to trial without a jury. A good judge may be able to give as good a decision as a bad jury. The assessors' ordinance, however, is a thing to which they do take great exception, where the assessors in a particular trial may come to a certain conclusion and the judge comes to a different conclusion and overrules it. Their objection to this is that in the initial stages it was brought in to deal with recalcitrants in administration, those who had been guilty of administrative malpractices.
A particular English case is engaging the mind of the West African at the moment. An Englishman was tried on a vital charge, and, after sentence had been given, it was reversed through the right of appeal to this country. They maintain that this is a procedure in respect of a European which would not have been admitted in the case of an educated African. I refer to the Dr. Knowles case. They say that in the case of a West African, his liberty would have been taken, and there would have been no right of appeal. We ought to define a broad and generous policy, and recognise the point made by the Duke of Devonshire in regard to this, that when the rights of the immigrant population come in conflict with those of the indigenous people, the native interest must
always predominate. In relation to this development of African administration, the words of Lord Lugard are useful:
It is important to ascertain the customary law and to follow it when possible, for the appointment of a chief who is not the recognised heir or is disliked by the people may give rise to serious trouble.
In relation to West Africa, Sir Hugh Clifford said:
I doubt very much if any system of government which we can provide to replace it can possibly effect the same purpose with the same measure of efficiency as that which the natives themselves have followed. It should be the policy of our administration to give a higher quality of justice and larger liberty than would be otherwise possible.
In taking up the white man's burden, we ought not at the same moment to take away the black man's birthright.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: I rise to second the very comprehensive Motion proposed by my hen. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Marley). Seeing the lateness of the hour, I should prefer to confine myself to the more general considerations rather than go into the many details into which it is so easy to stray. In view of the considerable number of Members in all parts of the House who, I believe, intend to take part in the Debate, I shall abbreviate as much as I can what I have to say, because I want to express the hope that this Motion will go forth from the House, as a, great Charter of Rights for the backward native population of the Empire, and that it will be endorsed by the approval, if not unanimous, at any rate nearly unanimous approval of this honourable House. Short as may be the time in which we are allowed to debate it, truncated as that time has been, and brief as must be the survey we give to the subject, nevertheless once this Motion has been voted by the House and adopted as its considered opinion, it will not be neglected or ignored by the world outside.
As my hon. Friend has just said, there are vast numbers of people outside this House who take note of what it does, and take all the more note of a declaration such as this Motion will constitute, because it is not very often that this House is able to consider these questions at all, and still less often that it is able to consider them in the general and comprehensive form embodied in the Motion
now before us. It is the accident of the Ballot which has enabled it to happen at this moment, and that gives all the more importance to the declaration, or the charter, if it is adopted by the House, One need not enlarge on the magnitude of the subject, but it is perhaps well to remind ourselves that when we speak of Colonial policy, we perhaps are too much inclined to think of that subject, as relating to the self-governing Dominions of the Empire. When we speak of the Empire, four men out of five think of Australia, Canada and so forth, as if they were the Empire, but if we look at the population of the British Empire, and the human interests involved, we cannot fail to admit that the question of the Dominions is a relatively small part of the question of Imperial policy. In round figures, 450,000,000 represent the population of the British Empire, and of that number, but 60,000,000 are white people. Speaking very roughly, 390,000,000 are brown, black or yellow people, and the bulk of that total is constituted by the populations of India.
Like my hon. Friend, I do not want to speak to-night on the populations of India, because there are, and will be, many other opportunities. Let us exclude that population of roughly 320,000,000, and we are still left with no less than 70,000,000 outside India, the bulk of them in Africa, a large portion in the West Indies, the Pacific Islands and other parts of the globe, some in various parts of Asia, Ceylon and other areas. There are, then 70,000,000, if we exclude the teeming millions of India, and it is these 70,000,000 of whom we hear so little in this House, who have so little opportunity to have their wrongs or their grievances redressed and their voices heard. It is of these that we are thinking to-night. Colonial policy is not so much a question of looking after the Dominions. They are very well able to look after themselves. I do not belittle the importance of their influence, but they are able to make their voices heard and, so far from desiring us to raise our voices on their behalf, they would justly resent it if we said a single word about their internal affairs in this House.
From the point of view of the party on these benches this question of Colonial policy is first and foremost a Labour question. It is a great question arising out of the vast reservoir of cheap labour in
various parts of the world, and many people have been first brought to a serious consideration of this question from a realisation of its close bearing on the manual labour of this country. This great reservoir of low-paid labour may have a deleterious effect on the position of the white labourer wherever he may be found. I am not saying that that necessarily would be so if the native labourer was working under perfectly natural conditions everywhere, but if he is working under conditions of exploitation, that is to say, if he is going to be ground down in any way below his natural standard of living by the exercise of pressure in one form or another, or of force in one form or another, then he is in a position which is described as exploited. That is undoubtedly the case in a very large portion of the earth where these backward races are to be found and where their labour is to be found. They are undercutting very seriously the labour and the standard of living of the white worker. It is from that point of view that so great an interest is taken by the workers of this country, and of every country, in the operations of the International Labour Office at Geneva, because they see in international labour legislation the possibility of remedying a grave situation. It is for that reason, I presume, that in the very forefront of the Motion these words stand:
the native population of our dependencies should not he exploited as a source of low-grade labour.
Our objects, from this limited point of view, are two: First of all to prevent this exploitation, this pressure in one way or another of the backward people to work at a lower standard than if they were complete masters of their own action and labour; and, secondly, to raise in whatever way we can their own standard of living. We find that our own standard of living in this country would be best aided by raising their standard of living too, and not by grinding it down low. From the point of view of which so much has been said and thought in this House, from the point of view of employment, with the limited world market that exists now, it is of vital importance that the standard of living of these backward populations should be raised to the utmost possible. It is a matter which has the most vital bearing
on the question of unemployment in this country.
Without lingering over that, it is not only the point of view of the interest of the white worker that influences us. We recognise that that leads us on inevitably and infallibly to the whole question, which is a wider question, of humanity and responsibility—responsibility that we have in this House and this country for the welfare of these people in every respect. We have that responsibility because, whatever the causes may be, we find ourselves responsible for looking after them. We cannot cut ourselves adrift; it would be the worse for them if we did. We find ourselves responsible and we find ourselves bound, not merely by an economical bond, but by the broad human bond of our common humanity, and the responsibility for seeing that their interests are looked after. The responsibility is doubled and trebled because they cannot speak for themselves. Whatever our grievances and sorrows and pains, we at least have some machinery for making our voices heard; at least there is a chance that anybody may be heard through our representative system. But they have no representative system and have no chance of making their voices heard. These millions are dumb, and if anyone speaks for them, it must be we.
That leads us naturally on to the recognition of another fact which has come to the forefront more and more in recent years, and that is that the responsibility for these people is not solely a national responsibility, but is an international responsibility; and on these benches—I aim sure on other benches too—we are increasingly alive to the international responsibility that we bear. Through the League of Nations, through the operations of the International Labour Office, through the operation of the Mandates Commission, more and more reality is being given to this side of international responsibility. The duties of Empire, as I see them, are not confined to developing certain backward portions of the Empire for the benefit of the Mother Country, nor are they confined, as many would have said till recently, to developing them in the interests of the native populations that happen to be there. The only right theoretical way of looking at the ques-
tion is that the responsibility is to develop them for the benefit of the whole world—those who are in the territories and the world in general. Some have endeavoured to express that idea by the conception of a dual mandate, partly for the people on the spot and partly for the world outside. But at any rate that makes it more and more an international problem, and with that international aspect of it we on these benches have the heartiest sympathy.
I want to ask a question which brings this matter to a head. Why is this an urgent question? We think it is urgent or we should not make this Motion. But if you were to ask most people, in view of recent controversies about these matters, they would say that it is urgent because matters have come to a head in East Africa and something has to be done there. We have had committee after committee, commission after commission, and inquiry after inquiry, to see what ought to be done to meet certain discontents and dissatisfactions that exist in East Africa. They exist among the white men there. We are told that because in Kenya in particular, the white population is dissatisfied with its political and constitutional position, and because it has been very vocal in putting forward its discontents for some years past, therefore it is extremely urgent that we should do something in the way of constitutional changes in East Africa, in Kenya and in the adjacent territories.
Some have gone as far as to say that this matter is so urgent that, if we find it difficult to deal with the whole question of native rights and native policy, nevertheless we must go ahead in Kenya with certain constitutional changes which would have the effect of giving a greater amount of control to the European minority. I dispute that. I say that if we are not going to deal with this question all round, from the point of view of native policy, with a new and adequate provision for native policy, there is no earthly reason why we should deal with it at all. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) presided over a Commission which arrived at a very comprehensive scheme of reform. I am not saying that it is perfect, but it has the great merit in my eyes that it links together any question of constitutional alteration in Kenya with
the whole question of new provisions for safeguarding native rights, and these provisions are the keystone of the whole matter.
Without committing ourselves to details, that is the position which most of us here take up. If you are going to lay down new safeguards for native rights and think out a new native policy, then there may be a case for making such constitutional changes; but there is nothing whatever that is so urgent in the matter of constitutional change in Kenya as to compel us to take any step on that matter alone. If that is not urgent, what is? The question of native rights or of native wrongs—that is the question that really needs to be dealt with, and the matter on which new steps and a forward policy have to be taken and must be taken. It is not as if matters were satisfactory, and we were just thinking out elaborate provisions for making them better. Matters are not satisfactory. We speak of Kenya. None of us wants to make an attack on any particular section of our own people in any particular part of the Empire, and we do not make an attack on the individuals there. But it so happens that, owing to local conditions, that particular Colony has become the testing point, the storm-centre if you like, the place where this question comes to a head.
The same tendency is going on in other parts of Eastern and Central Africa, and even in other parts of the Empire. It is the tendency to extend the system which is sometimes called the South African system, whereby the natives are regarded mainly as a labour supply, crowded into totally insufficient reserves, and pressed, or induced, or encouraged—Heaven knows how many elegant phrases are used to cover up this pressure—to come out and work for the white man who has the greater part of the land under his control, and develops it in large plantations. That system is the exact opposite of the West African system as my hon. Friend described it, but it is a system which is, unfortunately, growing with rapid strides. It is a thoroughly bad system, and will have to be checked, but it is spreading, and the whole theory or philosophy of it, if I may use that phrase, is spreading all through East Africa, up through that belt of territory where you can get a certain limited amount of white
colonisation, right to Kenya, and it comes to a head in Kenya because the white population there happens to be larger than it is in any other part outside the Union of South Africa. That is why we concentrate on Kenya, and while the Commission to which I have referred has dealt very fully and fairly with the position of the settlers, we are not blaming the settlers. All we say is that the government of the country ought not to be handed over to people who have an economic interest on one side in the great controversy that arises there. They cannot be expected to be impartial judges of a question in which their own interests are so closely concerned.
What are the wrongs to which we refer? I can hardly do more than mention the heads. Under the head of labour we find that now—not at some future time, but at present—pressure is exercised in many ways to induce, or encourage, as the phrase is, the native labourer to come out and work for the whites. I am aware that declarations can be quoted on both sides. Sometimes a Governor says one thing, sometimes another, and officials Are puzzled as to what they are to do. Some are told that they are not to do anything to urge the native to go out and work for the white man, as against staying at home and cultivating his own fields; some act on that principle, and when they do so are told that they are doing wrong, and that they ought to urge the natives to come out and work. Others take the opposite line because opposing declarations have been made.
Let me give an example. There was a meeting of the so-called Convention of Associations, a body of settlers in Kenya at which a speech was made by the Governor himself. It is a startling fact that a purely private and non-governmental organisation should invariably be taken so seriously by governors, acting governors, and principal officials. On this occasion the Chief Native Commissioner, who is charged particularly with the duty of looking after the interests of the natives, came forth and said in his speech that while officials were not allowed to recruit it was their duty to give every encouragement and help to natives desiring to leave the reserves in search of employment. The Acting-Colonial Secretary said that the Govern-
ment believed that the attitude of hostility or neutrality—note the words—on the part of administrative officers hindered the flow of labour. Therefore they are not even to be neutral. They are to take sides. Therefore, he continued, "they were now definitely instructed to do their utmost to promote the flow of labour from the reserves, "a matter which he said was of immense importance to the industries of the country. That is not leaving things alone. That is not leaving a free choice. That is definitely taking the side of the white employer to induce the natives to come out and work for the whites. To show that this is no small question let me remind the House of the number of native workers expected by the settlers to come out and work for them. The Labour Commission of 1927 estimated that the total population which was able-bodied and capable of working was 400,000 and this included all those who were living on their own lands and working their own lands in the ordinary course of native life and agriculture. Then the question was asked "What do we as settlers want? "and the requirements of the settlers were estimated at 200,000. It was claimed that these 200,000 natives should be got, however they might be got, for wage labour on white estates. Thus of the 400,000 able-bodied in the population, no less than one-half were expected to leave their native agriculture, their native life and their native villages to work for people outside the areas where they normally resided. That is a terrific demand. I am not saying that it has been satisfied. I do not believe it has. Something like 150,000 I believe are actually got out, but the demand made was much greater than that.
On the question of the land, I would only point out that anxiety about losing their land is the most disturbing of all the disturbing influences in the minds of the native peoples. The Commission presided over by the late Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies three or four years ago reported that they found from their inquiries that nothing disturbed the minds of the natives more than the constant fear that they were going to lose their land. That fear has, unfortunately, been justified by the fact that so-called reserves which have been set aside for the natives have been nibbled away time after time in the interests of the white settlers,
and there is no guarantee, and the natives think there is no certainty, that it will not continue. It is one of those causes which, I venture to suggest, though I have not exact knowledge, is behind the outbreaks of so-called sedition and unrest and so forth which are attributed to other causes. They are amply explained by the fact of this anxiety with regard to possible losses of land in the future. On the question of taxation—I am speaking of present wrongs which need to be redressed—I have here a pamphlet which can be obtained from the office of the East African Dependencies in Cockspur Street. It is a very attractively produced pamphlet to induce people to go out and make their fortunes in Kenya, and among the attractions offered, in addition to sport and other things, are exceedingly low taxation—that is for the whites—and exceedingly cheap labour. On page 34, we find that the taxes are described as follows:
There is no Income Tax in Kenya.
Happy land!
The following taxes are paid by European adult males: Non-native poll tax, 30s. per annum; education tax, 30s. per annum.
And there it ends. The rest is merely licences for guns and motor cars. That is all the taxation that there is, and side by side with that I put the fact that the taxation levied upon the adult male natives has been estimated, if you take the number of adult able-bodied males, at as much as 30s.—the same sum. There have been various estimates, but they vary between 23s. and 30s. The nominal rate of the tax is lower, but seeing that that tax is levied on innumerable people who are not able-bodied at all, if you average it out among those who are able-bodied, you find that it works out at 25s., 26., 27s., and some say up to 30s. a head. That represents the earnings of three months' labour. Then, on page 34, we get the wages, but I will only give one figure:
The cost of labour is as follows: general farm labourers, from 14s. to 18s."—
not per week, but per month; that is to say, from 3s. 6d. a week up.
These are among the attractions offered to the white settler, and I venture to say that the taxation system is one which cannot be justified on grounds of justice as between the two races in the manner in
which it is levied. To give one sidelight upon that, it is, as has been suggested, used as a lever for inducing people to work; in addition to some Governmental pressure, it is used as a further lever to get people to come out to work. In the meeting of the Convention of Associations this year, 1929, the Government was very much criticised for not ordering the collection of taxes at a particular moment, namely, at the beginning of the coffee-picking season. The reason obviously is that the taxes should be put on at the very moment. when they would exercise the strongest screw in order that labour might be obtained at the particular time when it was specially needed. Taxation is urged not as an instrument of revenue, but as an instrument for compelling people to work for the white races. That is a little side-light on the question of taxation.
These are the things that make this question urgent—not the complaints of the white settlers, but the wrongs from which the native people are suffering now. We want a new policy, and this Motion suggests the remedy, in my opinion, in broad and comprehensive terms. That remedy is to be found in removing those grievances to which I have alluded, and one more, which is more important perhaps at bottom than all the others, and that relates to the question of equal legal rights, equal rights before the law. However much you may go into this question of political change, you should make that political change on one firm foundation, which has been tried in other parts of this Empire, and has succeeded, and that is on the basis of a common electoral roll for all electors and a franchise which shall be the same for all. It is easy to criticise and even to ridicule it. It may be said that under such a system you would have an education test and a property test, and that. you would admit very few Africans. I am prepared to say that if you only admit 100 Africans, or only, say, a dozen Africans, upon your electoral roll at the first beginning, it is still the right policy to pursue, because it is the principle of equality that counts.
10.0 p.m.
It is the principle of equality, the principle of equal status, that means so much to the Africans themselves, and the same applies to our Indian fellow-subjects as to the Africans. It is the principle of
equality of status, which is granted with the possibility of development in future, with the possibility of saying to every man, "When you become a civilised man, you shall stand on an equal footing with the white man, and it is in your power to make yourself so "—it is that principle which appeals to the feelings and the aspirations of these people. I am not saying that that is a complete solution of the problem. I am merely saying that any solution except that, that any solution of the self-government problem which leads away from that, will lead in the wrong direction and is a dangerous step to take. We have to go forward in the right direction in this matter, to remedy these grievances, and give to these people, into their own hands, the possibility of taking a part, little by little, in the remedying of these grievances for themselves; and it is on those lines, which are laid down in this Motion, that we shall proceed if we are going to discharge the heavy responsibility that rests upon us.

Duchess of ATH0LL: The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton), who has just sat down, has rightly said that this is a very comprehensive Motion, and I hope he will forgive me for saying that I hardly think it is possible for this House to give a considered opinion upon it within the short space of two hours, bat I should like to assure the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Marley) how heartily I reciprocate his desire that native policy, Colonial policy, should be considered on a non-party basis, and how heartily we, on these benches, join with him in upholding that doctrine of trusteeship to the native races which was laid down by a Conservative Minister of State some six years ago.
I do not propose to follow either of the hon. Members who have just spoken in the various economic questions into which they entered. I want to bring before the House some reasons why some Members of this House, who have been studying conditions amongst women and children in the Crown Colonies—women and girls particularly—feel that there is urgent need for more consideration to be given to the social well-being, health, and education of women and girls in some of our dependencies than sometimes seems
to have been the case. This small group of Members of all parties who have been considering this question for some months past has met missionaries of different churches, of long standing in different Colonies, also laymen and women, among them doctors, and we are one and all deeply concerned at many of the things which we have learned bearing on the status, the health, and the welfare generally of women and girls.
In particular, we have been terribly impressed by what we have learned on a subject on which I put a question to-day to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, namely, the existence of A pre-marriage rite among young girls, among many African tribes, a rite which is frequently referred to as the circumcision of girls. We have heard that this obtains in Southerin Nigeria and among one tribe in Uganda, but we understand that it exists in its worst form among the Kikuyu tribe in Kenya. I am sure it will be realised that this is not an easy subject to deal with publicly. I venture to bring it before the House, because none of us can afford to forget the responsibility that has been impressed upon us from the benches opposite—the responsibility for that Colonial Empire -which is directly governed from this House. We must at all times be ready to study the conditions in that Colonial Empire, particularly when we remember how little native races may be able to express themselves, and how backward they may be in respect of many of their customs.
I wish to give the House some idea of what this rite means, because I am certain it is not realised by many people in this country. I doubt very much if, even apart from missionaries and doctors, and perhaps Government officials, there are many white people who realise what this rite is, and what it means to the health and well-being of the girls and women. The term applied to it is totally inadequate to give an idea of what it means. Our Committee has been assured by medical men, and by missionaries who have attended these women in hospital and in their homes, that the rite is nothing short of mutilation. It consists of the actual wholesale removal of parts connected with the organs of reproduction. The operation is performed publicly before one or two thousand people by an old woman of the tribe armed with an iron knife. No
anesthetic is given, and no antiseptics are used. The old woman goes with her knife from one girl to another, performing the 'operation, returning it may be once or twice to each victim. A lady missionary steeled herself to see this operation not long ago, and has given a description of it verified by photographs which she took. She told us that the girl has a whistle put into her mouth so that her screams will not be heard. A medical man told us that the operation leaves great scarring, contraction, and obstruction; natural eliminating processes are gravely interfered with, and there is reason to believe that much blood poisoning results. The obstruction causes terrible suffering at childbirth, and the first child is rarely born alive. It is difficult to ascertain the extent of the mortality, because there is no register of births or deaths, but one missionary who has attended many of these young women in hospital in their confinement. told me recently that out of 10 eases, affecting 20 lives, only six lives survived. I have also been told of a boarding house for 60 girls of this tribe, where a death had occurred every year lately from sometimes an apparently trivial cause. A cut finger may turn so septic owing to the poisoning from which the girl has suffered, that that type of injury may cause her death.
What is the policy of the Government in regard to this terrible custom? I put a question to the Under-Secretary of State to-day on the subject and his reply was:
The policy followed up till now by the Colonial Governments concerned has been to bring persuasion to bear upon the tribes which non- practise the rite in its more brutal forms to return to the traditional and less harmful form of it. I am glad to say that a number of local native councils in East Africa have passed resolutions making illegal the severer forms of the operation.
I will ask the hon. Gentleman how he can ensure that the old women who may receive instructions to practise the less severe form of the operation, will in fact carry out the instructions. When the knife is in her hand, what reason is there to believe that she will restrain herself? The committee of which I have spoken has been assured by a medical man of standing in East Africa that, while there is this lesser form, which is not so severe a form of mutilation as the one which
I have described, it is an operation which he would not sanction by anyone under his control. If we turn to the question of persuasion, surely one of the best ways in which to persuade people is to give them practical demonstrations of other and better ways; and that surely means that every opportunity should be taken to help them to be healthy, and to help women to realise that, if they do not go through this operation, they can become mothers with much less suffering and danger to their children and to themselves.
When we ask what is being done in Kenya in this matter of care for women in childbirth, we find that there are no midwives practising in the reserves; at least, that is our information. We are told that, though there are several Government hospitals—the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, I think, was misinformed on the subject of hospitals—there are only women nurses in two of them. Therefore, the majority of these hospitals are not very well equipped for attending women in their confinement. No doubt, it may be difficult to find any women to train as midwives, but Uganda shows a splendid example of what can be done in that way. We have been informed that in the Protectorate, there are no less than 26 centres for maternity and child welfare, and, as a result, in the last 10 years, the infant mortality rate has dropped from 500 per thousand births—a terrible level—to not more than 130 per thousand in the kingdom of Uganda.
It seems difficult to believe that what has been possible in Uganda cannot be possible in Kenya. Kenya has its mission boarding houses and boarding schools maintained by the various missions, where African girls are taken in and given an all-round training for several years, and I have no doubt that this training is the best possible preparation for definite training as midwives. One of these boarding-houses is besieged by girls wanting to come in, and a missionary who has been in charge of it has told us that she has far more applications than she can possibly satisfy— applications from girls, some of whom at least wish to escape from this mutilation. To sum up this policy of advocating the lesser rite, it seems to me that it is impossible, first of all, to guarantee that the instructions given will be carried out,
and in the second place there is room for a great deal more to be done in the way of providing relief and hygienic instruction for these unhappy women. If we turn to what is said in the answer given to me as to the number of local native councils in East Africa which have passed resolutions making this severer operation illegal, I believe—

Mr. MAXTON: I do not like to interrupt the Noble Lady, but this is a Motion of a very wide nature dealing with Colonial policy with regard to coloured races, and I want to ask whether the Noble Lady is entitled to deal with what seems to be a special interest of her own and with a question which she put to the Under-Secretary at Question Time to-day.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I do not think the Noble Lady is out of order, although I do not think that it has more than an indirect bearing on the Motion before the House.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May I point out that the Motion includes the words
due care should be taken of native social well being
and surely if ever there was a subject that was germane to native social wellbeing it is the continuance of this barbarous and intolerable custom in one of our Dependencies.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: May I say that the practice which has been described is very prevalent among native tribes, and it is imperative on those in authority to take every means possible to stop it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have ruled that the Noble Lady is not out of order, but that she is dealing with but a restricted phase of the Motion.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I submit that the particular point with which I am trying to deal is of such tremendous importance—

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. While the Deputy-Speaker has given a ruling that this does come within the scope of the Motion, and anything about black men would be within its scope, yet there is in these things a certain perspective, and I put it to—

Miss RATHBONE: Women do not count!

Mr. MAXTON: Surely that is unfair![HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, then, I—

Duchess of ATHOLL: If the House will allow me I will show that this is a very urgent question. In his answer to-day the Under-Secretary stated that certain native counsels were trying to stop the severer form of this operation. I believe they have passed a rule instituting a punishment of one month's imprisonment and a fine of 50s. for offenders, but that, I am told, refers only to the reserves, and is easily evaded elsewhere I have heard of a case of a Christian girl who wished to avoid being subjected to either operation, but she was seized by her relatives and obliged to submit to the severest form. Where the urgency of the question comes in is this, that an appeal was made to 'a native Court for damages against the operator, but the magistrate ruled that no grievous hurt had been done to the girl.

Dr. MORGAN: What is the date of that prosecution?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I believe it was in July this year. I have seen a letter of protest in regard to it in the "East African Standard" of August. The case was carried to the Supreme Court, where the decision of the native Court was upheld, so that the woman who inflicted this terrible operation on this girl against her will has only a sentence of 30s. I am quite well aware that no Member of this House must say anything which reflects on the Courts, and so I will only say that we must presume that the Supreme Court of Kenya, in giving this decision, was carrying out the law. In that case the law must be altered, and it is for the House of Commons to show the Government of Kenya that that sort of law is not good enough. It is intolerable that a native girl who has had the courage to stand out against this custom of her tribe should be seized and forcibly operated on in this way. The letter from a well-known missionary, to which I have already alluded, referred to the fact that hundreds of young girls were anxious to escape from this operation. I must say to hon. Members that I understand the policy of British Governments of all political complexions has been to
avoid interference as far as possible with native customs subject to this qualification, that they were not contrary to justice and humanity. I ask the House what could be more inhuman than the practice which I have described, and what could be more contrary to what we understand as British justice than that a girl endeavouring to escape from this terrible custom should not have the protection of a British Court.
One hon. Member just now referred to the practice of suttee. That is, I believe, the only one of the old practices of India with which we have interfered, and which we have definitely prohibited by law. I would remind the House that that definite and courageous step was taken just one hundred years ago, and I say to the House in all sincerity, and after very careful deliberation, that I regard this custom of the mutilation of girls as practised in Kenya among the Kikuyu as even more injurious to the race than suttee, terrible though suttee was. The suffering it inflicts may not be so hideous as the suffering of suttee, but certainly it is more prolonged; it may follow a girl through life, and it is more injurious to the race because it affects the health and lives of both women and children.
Some of my hon. Friends who have been serving on this committee went with me the other day to ask the Secretary of State if he would set up a Select Committee to inquire into this terrible practice, but he said he could not see his way to do so. Nevertheless, he has assured us that he is going to communicate with the Governors of the Crown Colonies on this subject, and endeavour to secure from them fuller information than he has at present. I submit that, if the information he obtains from official sources confirms the statements that have been made to the committee by several people of experience, every effort should be made to put an end to this terrible abuse. I have only to-day seen a public letter in an East African paper from the Chairman and Secretary of a committee of Kikuyu women protesting against this practice. The native elders of certainly one missionary church in Kenya have for several years taken a very strong line against it, and there are, I believe, many of the younger men among the Kikuyu who deplore it. Are we going to be more
backward in our standards, lower in our standards than the Christians, or even some of the non-Christians among the Kikuyu people?
I do not wish to detain the House longer, because there is very little time left, and there are several other speakers, but I would say to the Under-Secretary how terribly concerned this committee feel about this question, and I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to learn all he can about it, to impress upon the Governors how greatly distressed anyone is who has heard the information provided by those who have had experience of this terrible custom, to urge them to keep ever in view our trusteeship for the native races, and to allow no difficulties to stand in the way of doing everything that may be possible to end a barbarous custom which is causing untold suffering, ill-health and loss of life.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in line 10, to leave out the word "or, "and, at the end of the question, to add the words "or sex."
This Amendment would make the last sentence of the Motion read as follow:
Native self-governing institutions should be fostered; and franchise and legal rights should be based upon the principle of equality for all without regard to race, colour, or sex.
In moving it, my motive is not to discuss the great abstract principle of sex equality, important as I believe that to be. My object is a much more immediately practical one. The Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) has communicated to the House some of the results of the consultations that we have been holding with those who have had intimate acquaintance with the lives of coloured women in some parts of Africa, and has dealt with the question of the effect of certain customs on the health of native women. I want very shortly to allude to another aspect of the question. We have had evidence from witnesses which has revealed to us that the position of the native women in many of these tribes—I do not say all—is one of sheer slavery, accompanied by many of the worst conditions of slavery, and carried on practically without let or hindrance from the British authorities—slavery, not to Europeans, but to men of their own race. If it be thought that the word "slavery" is an exaggeration,
may I quote the definition of the word in the Slavery Convention of the League of Nations:
Slavery is the condition or status of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.
We have evidence that practically all the rights of ownership are, in effect, exercised over the coloured women of these races. A girl is sold by her father, often in early infancy, without choice, to the man who is destined to be her husband. Before marriage she undergoes, again without choice, at the age of 10 or 11, the cruel custom that has been described by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross. After marriage she becomes the property of her husband, to be used by him and treated by him as he desires. If he dies, she becomes the absolute property of his next male kin, it may be his brother, his cousin, or even a little boy of her own. She may be sold by her new owner in one direction, her daughter may be sold in another direction; the sons are usually retained as the representatives of the tribe. One witness, a very cautious moderate man, evidently anxious not to exaggerate but rather impatient with the questions with which we plied him as to whether a woman had rights over real or personal property or over her children, said, "I can summarise it very shortly. So far as we can judge, a woman in these tribes has no rights at all from the moment she is born until the moment she dies. "If that is not slavery, what is? To endure torture and mutilation, to be sold in marriage to a man whom she loathes, to be obliged to endure childbirth under conditions under which childbirth is carried on, without any of the comforts of decent treatment and medical care, and separated forcibly from her children —are those things less hurtful and humiliating and degrading to humanity because the persons who perpetuate them are the blood relations of the women who endure them?
I would not have it thought that we who are responsible for this Amendment are out of sympathy with the purpose of the Motion. Most of us are in full sympathy with it. We do not wish to draw a red herring across the trail or to distract attention from the need of better relations between coloured
men and white men. Two blacks do not make a white. The exploitation of coloured women by coloured men is no excuse for the exploitation of coloured men by white men. But if we are asked to accept the principle that native self-governing institutions should be fostered, and the franchise and equal rights should be based upon the principle of all without regard to sex or colour, we hope the champions of these native races will remind them that it has been an old principle that there is no slavery under the British flag. It has been a terrible shock to many of us to whom these facts are new that there is slavery under the British flag, not in small numbers, but some millions at least of women, and it is tolerated so long as you can get away under the pretence that it is a domestic custom. Many of us will never be satisfied until the full hideous truth is disclosed and made known to the women of the world and everything that can be done is done to stamp out slavery of this kind, whether by legislation, by education, or by public opinion. Let them take this message to the men of the native races. There can be no equal citizenship between coloured men and white men till there is equal citizenship between coloured men and coloured women.

Colonel WEDGWO0D: I beg to second the Amendment.
When I first heard of these vile things about six months ago, I think it was the cruelty to these children that most horrified me. Since then, what has horrified me far more is that this thing is tolerated, not by the House—we do not know anything about it—but by the English women living in Kenya. It is tolerated by these settlers. It is part of the horrible policy of the bar between human beings and human cattle. This thing used to exist in Uganda. Uganda used to be even worse than Kenya, not in this way, but in a hundred ways. The missionaries have been in Uganda for 35 years, and Uganda is now an example to the whole of Africa. The women are decently treated as the equals of men where they are more or less civilised after 35 years of Christian missions. I never thought the day would come when I should speak well of Christian missions. They have done it there, but we have been 30 years in Kenya. English women and men have been living amongst these things for 30 years and it is tolerated
and it is legal to-day, and if a, girl tries to escape from it, she has no case before a British Court. Is not that appalling? It seems to me this is a case where our eyes are opened to the awful gulf that there is between white and coloured in some parts of our Colonies. It sometimes forces me to think of the black man in a black Colony. French officials may treat him unjustly, live on his women, bully him, but the nigger in a French Colony will strike his breast and say, "I am a French citizen." I have never heard a native in an English Colony say that he is proud of being an Englishman. [Interruption.]

Mr. PALIN: I have heard it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the West Indies, perhaps. The real reason is that infernal colour bar which has caused the system winch regulates the relations between white and coloured men. That is why I get back to the Motion. The essence of the Motion is that we should treat both black and white before the law in every respect as equals. Every item of difference is carefully set clown in Kenya. He may not own or lease land, he may not rent land, he may not grow coffee in Kenya, he must have his finger prints taken in Kenya, he may not leave his master unless he goes to prison in Kenya. These are all the differences between black and white in Kenya. They are differences which are observed else- where, but in Kenya the position is worse. I am quite certain that it all comes back to this in the end. Are you going to give these people a chance of being civilised, educated, and treated exactly in the same way as the white population? As long as the Colonial Office sticks to the system of communal representation, whether in Kenya or anywhere else, separating black and white in India and in Africa, perpetuating the idea that they should not possibly vote for each other, that it would be loss of caste and prestige for a white man to go and ask a black man for his vote, as long as you stick to that idea, you permanently degrade the man who is not given the same right of citizenship as another. The one thing that they are determined upon in Kenya is that they will not have a separate roll of electors for Indians. What we want is the common roll. The common roll need not swamp your white settler in the least.
All that we ask in the common roll is that a man or woman shall be sufficiently educated to pass a civilised test. You may have a property test too, if you like. If you have the common roll you at least establish the possibility of future common interests in a common citizenship.
I despair of getting the common rights asked for in this Motion for the black men in Africa if these rights are always to be dependent upon the presence in this House of a few people who hate the injustices done to the blacks. We cannot possibly protect the blacks thousands of miles away, and the only chance of their protecting themselves, in the long run, is that they shall have the right when they acquire a certain amount of education to have a voice in the Government to protect themselves. Therefore, I put before everything else this question of a common roll of electors. The hon. Gentleman—I wish he were a right hon. Gentleman—on the Front Bench who is now in charge of this Department has recently come back from Ceylon, where he has done justice to the people there. He has abolished communal representation and, in the interests of the citizens, has established a common roll there. Could he not apply that principle, in however elementary a manner, to this country of Kenya, where it is far more necessary? Unless the black has a chance of some day rising to the position of being able to vote for a white man, or even to stand himself for Parliament, all our pious Resolutions will fail, in the long run, because we cannot permanently protect from England a civilisation developing so rapidly as the civilisation of Kenya to-day.
The natives in Kenya, I think, trust me pretty well. I would beg of them to remember that their chance of citizenship, their chance of rising to equality with the white, all depends upon their realising that this horrible circumcision custom should be put an end to, and that their rise in civilisation will be measured there, as it is measured everywhere else, by the treatment of women by them. It is far better to get these people by persuasion to drop these practices, just as Suttee was put down. If persuasion does not succeed, then the law must do it, in the interests of humanity and in the interests of civilisation.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I am sorry that the time for our discussion has been cut so short to-night, and that my rising now prevents other hon. Members, some of whom I would have wished very much to have heard, from speaking. I know well the tragedy of the undelivered speech, but I think that hon. Members would expect that there should be some Government comment on this Resolution. We ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Marley), who moved the Resolution, for bringing this subject before us. I enjoyed his speech, which was full of humanity and of robust commonsense, as well as the speeches that have followed. It is natural that in this House the bulk of our time should be taken up with domestic matters, which are important and often very urgent. Foreign affairs also receive a good deal of attention. India has been recently brought prominently before us, and is likely to be still more so in the future, which is all to the good. But I have often thought that it is not sufficiently or frequently enough realised that this House is directly responsible for the welfare of from 50,000,000 to 70,000,000 of human beings, scattered all over the earth, whose conditions of life may be adversely or happily affected by decisions which are taken here. I wonder how many Members of Parliament could score 75 per cent. of points in a, test as to the names of British colonies and protectorates, leaving out the question of where they are.
There are some 36 British colonies and protectorates, including the mandated territories. In the administration of those dependencies there are about 60,000 colonial public service officials engaged—a fact not often realised. These British officials are important people. They are sometimes criticised, and they may—on occasion—deserve it; but they are performing a great service, and many of them are doing exceptionally fine work without any publicity. They have to make many sacrifices. Their family life is frequently broken up, they are often cut off from their wives and children for years, and have to endure bad climatic conditions. Nothing is better for them than to know that this House is interested in the problems and difficulties which they have to face constantly and which are often numerous and great. For
all these reasons this discussion is to be welcomed.
The coloured peoples of the Empire present many variations of race and culture and no uniform policy is possible or desirable. There are, however, certain general principles which govern British policy and administration which are practically all covered by the terms of the Motion. These general principles have been set out in various documents, but as time is short I shall not quote from any of them. Suffice it for me to say that the Government accept fully the principles of the Devonshire and similar declarations in the spirit and in the letter. The method of the application of these principles is a matter which necessarily arouses controversy from time to time, but the principles themselves, I hope, are clear.
The Motion refers to the social well-being of the natives. One of the first considerations in that connection is health. You cannot have people happy and contented unless they have good health. Some attention has been devoted to this to-night. In the Colonial service increasing attention is being given to it. There are now 56 separate medical departments in the Colonies with 2,000 qualified medical men and women. British, Asiatic and African, so that, in quite a significant way, there has been introduced the principle of racial equality. The Colonial Office serves in some measure as an Imperial ministry of health. The chief medical officer at the Colonial Office keeps in touch with the medical difficulties of the overseas medical officers. There is in London an advisory medical and sanitary committee, and a medical research committee. These committees review colonial medical problems and stimulate and advise upon medical research. Very much more work and more research are required.
In regard to the special subject brought forward in the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl)—I think we should be grateful to her for raising the matter—I can assure her that she is pushing an open door so far as I am personally concerned in seeking to arouse my detestation of the practice she mentioned, and I know that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies shares my view. It is, however, my duty to point
out, at the same time, the difficulty of interfering with such traditional customs, and, while I do not say that this is an absolute bar to action, it does constitute a great obstacle. The instance which the Noble Lady gave of the attitude of the native Courts and of the relatives, and what we know from other sources of cases where girls who have refused to adopt this practice have been ostracised, show that it will require considerable efforts to get the practice stopped. My Noble Friend, the Secretary of State, is exploring the matter further, getting all the available information, and in the light of that he may be able to take action which, I hope, will satisfy the Noble Lady and also the conscience of this House.
A great deal has been said about the conditions of labour among coloured people. Time will not permit me to go into this subject, but I recognise the anxiety felt and the fact that the House is concerned about the possibilities of exploitation, which has not been unknown in the past. The British representatives at the League of Nations have taken a foremast place in negotiating and concluding the Slavery Convention the provisions of which have been made binding on all the British non-selfgoverning colonies, dependencies and mandated territories. If, as we hope, a satisfactory international convention for the limitation of forced labour is concluded at the next conference in 1930 it will be applied to all our dependencies. It is now laid down that compulsory labour must be limited to work of a public utility character near the workers' own homes, and done under strict regulation.
The question has been raised of the relation of native taxation to compulsory labour. The Poll Tax and Hut Tax have not always been used in Africa merely as a means of raising revenue. The Government position is that native labour should not be compelled to hire itself out solely to provide the means of meeting taxation. I believe this desirable end is now generally attained in Africa, though His Majesty's Government will always be watchful to see that no abuses occur. Hon. Members will remember that the Hilton Young Commission., after a very careful investigation, reported that native taxation, in East Africa, at least, was roughly commensurate with ability to pay. The
relation to other taxation must be watched.
We come back, as we always must come back, to the land question. It is an accepted policy that land allotted to natives is not to be alienated except for public utility purposes, when the consent of the Secretary of State must be obtained. Any land taken for public utility purposes must be replaced by an equivalent amount. There are other questions I must leave, but I would like to say one word about education.
I am not at all happy about its position throughout the Dependencies. Out of roughly 15,000,000 children of school age, only 2,500,000 are enrolled as scholars, and I think one of the strongest criticisms that can be made of our past Colonial history is for our neglect of primary education. I feel that many of our difficulties in Kenya would have been lessened to-day if the provision of primary education had been put into operation many years ago. A year ago an advisory committee on education in the Colonies was appointed. It superseded a committee on native education in Africa which existed some years previously. It is a very strong committee and has some of our leading educationists on it. It has the very good custom of roping in any visiting education director from the Colonies for consultation, and it has been able to work in many important directions. I hope that it will be able to provide us with some general lines of policy which will help to remove a stigma on our Colonial administration. I would like to have mentioned something about higher education. I can, at least, say that in Achimota, in the West and in Makerere in the East are two great institutions which might well be the genesis of African universities.
I would also have liked to say something about progress towards self-government. I feel that education and the encouragement of the development of self-governing institutions are the two most important requirements in our Colonial Empire policy. In this connection I am very much interested in the question of the gradual development of Legislative Councils from official and nominated to elected assemblies and with the increase, in number and importance, of local self-governing bodies as a training ground for the larger spheres. This development has
been seriously neglected, and we have lost a fine recruiting ground for administrators who might have eased the situation in many directions. But I have not time to go into that.
There is also the question of franchise and representation, about which I would have liked to have said something. There is great need also for industrial legislation. A number of Colonies have no Workmen's Compensation Act, no Employers' Liability Act, and only very primitive factory legislation, or none at all. Then there is the important question of wage regulations. These are matters which ought to be explored. I hope that we may see them attended to in these various Colonies.
11.0 p.m.
I apologise for not replying to many of the points that have been raised. I have tried in a general way to give a survey, although I recognise that it has been very imperfect. It would have been less imperfect if I had had longer time. In closing, let me say that I believe the increased responsibility which we ought to feel for our Colonies has been to some extent recognised. There have been great changes in the Colonial Office in recent years. Although we on this side have differed sometimes on colonial policy with the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, I would like to say that in nay opinion, and I believe in the opinion of all who know the facts, he and his versatile and able late Under-Secretary have made a very great improvement in the Colonial Office. It is now alive with all sorts of committees working out plans for bettering the conditions of people in the Colonies. I think we have good reason for being hopeful of the progress of our Colonial Empire in the direction of a greater measure of health and comfort for our coloured fellow subjects. I have great pleasure in accepting the Motion and the Amendment which has been moved to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Main question, as amended, again proposed.

Commander WILLIAMS: The subject which we have been discussing to-night is naturally one which—

Mr. MARLEY: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Commander WILLIAMS: I feel that one of the short time at my disposal is to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for the colonies on his extremely able and interesting speech—

MR. MARLEY: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put," but Mr SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.

It being Eleven of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Knaresborough, and Darts of the rural districts of Pateley Bridge and Great Ouseburn, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 7th day of November, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]

Commander WILLIAMS: I wish to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport on this Order. It is essential that we should be quite clear on the matter. I should like to know what is the size of the area which is taken in by the Order. It is in respect of the Urban District of Knaresborough and parts of the Rural Districts of Pateley Bridge and Great Ouseburn. Why are only parts of these rural areas included and, further, where are the "spare parts" if I may so term them, of these districts to get their electricity supply? There is probably good reason for the form of the Order but I think we should have an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary to whom we all wish the greatest possible success in his new office.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Ponsonby): This Order and the other Orders on the Paper have been passed by the Electricity Commissioners and approved by the Minister. They have also been passed in another place. They all deal with extensions of areas of supply and in no case is any opposition anticipated. I am afraid I cannot go into the details of the Orders but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that they are in the usual form.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Knaresborough, and parts of the rural districts of Pateley Bridge and Great Ouseburn, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 7th day of November, 1929, be approved.

"Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Llangynor and Abergwili, in the rural district of Carmarthen, in the county of Carmarthen, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 7th day of November, 1929, be approved."—(Mr. Ponsonby.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Hayfield and part of the rural district of Glossop Dale, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 7th day of November, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]

Commander WILLIAMS: Everyone knows that these Orders have been through the usual course, but it has been the custom from time to time that when an hon. Member wishes to obtain information on these things the Minister in charge has that information by him, and that has never been refused before. He has always known it. In the last Government it happened and our Ministers always knew it, and even the Coalition Ministers always knew it. Will the hon. Gentleman obtain for me the size of these areas and say whether they are in the grid?

Major OWEN: On a point of Order. Is it permissible to discuss these Orders?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is not out of order.

Commander WILLIAMS: Although the Minister may not have the information to-night—though I still hope he has—I am sure that in future he will be able to give such information to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Hayfield and part of the rural district of Glossop Dale, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 7th day of November, 1929, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

LICENSING LAWS (WALES).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Major OWEN: The hour is somewhat late and but very little time is allotted to me to raise the matter of which I gave notice on the 14th of last month. We have had the pleasure to-night of listening to a discussion relating to certain nationalities which make up the community of nations forming the British Empire, but it is a curious anomaly that while the success of this Empire depends on the fair and just treatment of every one of its constituent members, it is quite impossible, under the rules of this House, to draw attention to any matter relating to the country to which I belong except on the Motion for the Adjournment and at a most unfortunate hour. I want to make a very strong protest against this. I heard with a great deal of sympathy the claims put forward on behalf of the coloured races of Africa by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). Time is allotted in this House for practically every section of the British Empire, with the exception of Wales, and unfortunately the tendency of recent years, at any rate since I have had the honour of being a Member of
this House, is, whenever a Welsh question is raised, to treat it with indifference, very often with derision, and certainly with a great amount of levity.
On the 14th of last month I put a question to the Home Secretary dealing with a matter which has been a subject of great discussion in Wales for a very long time, and that was the constitution of the Licensing Commission recently appointed by the Government. It was practically the first opportunity we had of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the composition of the Royal Commission. I put to him a perfectly fair question. Previously the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr Morris-Jones) had asked him why on that Commission there was not a single representative for Wales, in spite of the fact that it consisted of 21 members. The population of the whole of Great Britain is about 45,000,000. A special Royal Commission has been appointed for Scotland, and, eliminating, therefore, about 5,000,000, we are left with a population of 40,000,000. About 3,000,000 reside in Wales, and yet the Government do not think fit to give that nation a single representative on the Commission. What is the position with regard to this? The demand on the part of Wales for separate treatment on the matter of licensing legislation is not new. We have had, much to the surprise, I presume, of the right hon. Gentleman, a Sunday Closing Act for nearly 50 years, and yet in the House, when replying to me, he seemed to have forgotten entirely the existence of that Act. The only part of this Kingdom where the Sunday Closing Act applies is Wales, and we have had it since 1881, but the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is of no importance whatever.
Further than that, when replying to me, he treats Wales in the most cavalier fashion. In reply, for instance, to the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte), he said that it would be impossible to have a Commission smaller than a great mass meeting if we are to have representatives of every area. Wales to him is an area! May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Wales was a nation before ever a Saxon or Angle or Jute came here? Apparently, the only estimate the right hon. Gentle-
man has of a nation is the extent of its territory, the vastness of its armies and its great wealth. He forgets that the true measure of the greatness of a nation is not in its wealth so called, but in what its people contribute from its inmost soul towards the development of the rest of the world. Of the nations constituting the British Empire, Wales has done more than its share in that direction. Over a period of seven centuries there was not a greater influence in the whole of civilised Europe than that of the culture and literature of Wales. We are not a people to be treated as a little area somewhere. May I remind the House that the British Empire is largely due to the efforts of Welsh kings? They, at any rate, set the foundations of it, and during the whole of that period the greatest statesmen of this country were Welsh men. [An HON. MEMBER "And still are!"] While the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were still barbarians, we had learned the arts of peace, but when the crisis comes we are prepared to take up the defence of our country and our Empire. This country owes to a Welshman its lead in the last Great War. My time is limited, but I want to urge this. The right hon. Gentleman says that if we want representation for Wales there will have to be a mass meeting of a Royal Commission. That is only an argument in favour of the proposition I put to him. Let him establish a separate Royal Commission for Wales.
What is the history of this demand by Wales? No fewer than 18 Local Option Bills have been introduced into this House, and on at least three occasions the House has given the Bills a Second Reading. On the first occasion, 22 Welsh Members voted in favour of the Bill, and not a single Welsh Member voted against it. On the second occasion, in 1893, 23 Welsh Members voted in favour of the Bill, and one against it. On the third occasion, in 1920, 21 voted for the Bill, and four against it. I had the privilege of making my maiden speech in this House on a Welsh Local Option Bill, and on that occasion, although the Labour Government were then in office, they refused to give it their support. We who live in Wales and have our being amongst its people know that this demand for separate licensing legislation has been a strong one in Wales for 50 years.
We say to the right hon. Gentleman that if Scotland deserves a special Royal Commission of its own we in Wales demand to have one too. If it is to be the practice of this House and of every Government to treat Wales with indifference, to treat it derisively, I want to utter a word of warning. I want to end the remarks I have to make with these words. An English king, Henry II, was returning from Ireland and boastfully hurled gibes at the old Welshman of Pencader. These were the words in which the old Welshman answered him. They are recorded by a famous Welshman. I will not give it in the original, though a Welshman can not only speak his own tongue but the Saxon as well:
This nation, O King, may often he weakened and in great part destroyed by the power of yourself and others, hut many a time, as it deserves, it will rise triumphant. Never will it be wholly destroyed by the wrath of man unless the wrath of God be added; nor do I think that any other nation than this of Wales or any other tongue, whatever may hereafter come to pass, shall on the day of the great reckoning before the most High Judge answer for this corner of the earth.
You cannot by derision and indifference kill a nation. Let it have a chance of developing itself as it should in this great community of nations.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen) has given us a very fine instance of the best kind of Welsh orator. I can assure him that in one or two respects I have not offended. I have the greatest admiration for his country and his countrymen, and I hold them in as high regard as I do people in any part of the British Empire. But if the hon. Member really felt so deeply and was so indignant on this question I am at a loss to understand why we did not hear him earlier, and why questions were not put weeks and months before one found its way on to the Order Paper.

Major OWEN: As a matter of fact it was not appointed until 8th October, 1929, and the House was not sitting.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I put down two questions to the hon. Gentleman at the earliest 'opportunity.

Mr. CLYNES: think the hon. Member is rather hazy about the beginning of the Session. This Session of Parlia-
ment began on the 2nd of July, and this subject was an election issue. It was found in the utterances and publications of the leaders of the Labour party, and it found its way as a separate paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, on 2nd July. Later, on 14th August, the papers all over the country announced the proposed appointment of the first batch of the members of the Commission. On 26th September the complete personnel of the Commission was publicly announced. While I do not describe the appeal which has been addressed to me as an after-thought, I would say that if there is all this depth of feeling on this question, the matter might have been raised very much earlier and brought forward long ago. The truth is that so far as there has been a distinction between any one part of the Kingdom and another on a matter of licensing the distinction has been between Scotland and England. [Interruption.] I am coining to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Throughout the history of licensing legislation England and Wales have always been treated as a single unit, and Scotland as a distinct and separate unit. I know that more than 40 years ago a separate Welsh Commission was appointed for the one purpose of dealing with Sunday closing in Wales, and on such a subject of course, there had to be a separate Welsh Commission. But for all other purposes in connection with licensing legislation, England and Wales have been treated as one piece of territory.
I have not thought of putting forward any test of locality, and certainly the constitution of this Commission was not settled on any basis of numbers. If we were to say that Wales should have a separate Commission because her population is 3,000,000 or thereabouts, Lancashire, say, would be entitled, on that basis, to two commissions, for its population is more than 6,000,000. You cannot therefore on any mere basis of numbers declare the right to a separate Commission. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when I used the word "area" in reply to a supplementary question I was not thinking of Wales alone. There has been a large mass of correspondence claiming representation from many parts of the country and from a large number of separate organisations and societies.
A number of such communications have come from Wales, but certainly neither in terms nor in numbers do they indicate anything like that depth of indignation which found expression in the eloquence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The members of the Commission were not selected on a territorial basis or as representing any part of the area throughout which licensing law extends. They were chosen for their knowledge of the problems involved and for their experience in dealing with the social aspect of this question. It would be a mistake in my judgment to regard the Commissioners as advocates for any particular area, and I aim confident that the fullest consideration will be given by the Commission to the people's opinion in Wales as it will be represented to them in evidence. Indeed, I think it would be a very bad thing for the work of the Commission if men holding views and opinions upon definite schemes were to have any considerable voice on the Commission. I think that such definite schemes can be best presented in the body of evidence which I am certain will be laid before the Commission—in other words, that definite schemes and ideas as to what should be done can be better represented by evidence than by representatives on the Commission.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Is that why Mr. B. T. Hall is appointed?

Mr. CLYNES: Mr. Hall certainly is a man of very wide experience and represents a vast number of people, and probably would make a claim that the clubs of the country, which come under the licensing laws, should have an expert spokesman on the body.

Mr. JONES: No man in the country stands out more definitely committed than Mr. Hall, who goes on to the Commission with his mind made up.

Mr. CLYNES: It is not a point about his views. It is his experience and knowledge of the problem. The Government thought it was proper that societies and organisation as such should not be represented on the Commission, but that points of view and experience should be represented there through the personnel of the 20 men who were on that body.

Mr. JONES: Is that why the President of the National Commercial Temperance League was put upon it?

Mr. CLYNES: I am ready to discuss at the proper time the personnel of the Commission, but it is not the moment to answer the question at any length. The Commission consists of persons with special knowledge of various questions affecting licences. One of the objects of the Commission will be to conduct an impartial examination of the various proposals that may be made for amending the existing licensing laws, and I can only repeat that I am confident, from my knowledge of the Chairman of that body and its members, that they will have due regard to the authority they have received from this House and in the name of the King, and will not unduly press any personal views, but will have regard to the well-being and benefit of the nation as a whole.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: It is no question of personnel at all. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that in regard to Wales we had special treatment in regard to licensing matters. There are definite views that are entertained by the Welsh people in regard to them and I think the Government have insulted Wales by the treatment they have accorded her.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven O'Clock.